throbber
Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:66
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`GABRIELLE STUVE and JESSICA
`NICODEMO, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`Case No. 1:21-CV-01845
`
`The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY a/k/a
`KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`Dean N. Panos
`dpanos@jenner.com
`Thomas E. Quinn
`tquinn@jenner.com
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel.: (312) 222-9350
`
`-and-
`
`Kate T. Spelman (pro hac vice)
`kspelman@jenner.com
`Alexander M. Smith
`asmith@jenner.com
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel.: (213) 239-5100
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`The Kraft Heinz Company
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:67
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Phthalates Are Common Chemicals And Pose No Health Hazards At
`Trace Levels. ............................................................................................................2
`
`Plaintiffs Challenge The Presence of Phthalates in Kraft Macaroni &
`Cheese. .....................................................................................................................4
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs’ “Adulteration” Claims, Including Their IFDCA Claim, Are
`Preempted Because The FDA Permits Phthalates In Food And Regards
`Them As Safe. ..........................................................................................................6
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Failure-to-Disclose Claims Are Fatally Flawed. ..................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure-to-disclose claims are preempted because they
`seek to impose disclosure requirements that are not imposed by
`federal law. .................................................................................................11
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure-to-disclose claim also fails because the alleged
`presence of phthalates is not material to reasonable consumers. ...............14
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Based On Affirmative Misrepresentations Are Not
`Actionable. .............................................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“The Taste You Love” and “The Part of Parenting That’s
`Impossible to Mess Up” are non-actionable puffery. ................................17
`
`The alleged presence of phthalates does not render the truthful
`“NO Artificial _____” statements on the packaging false or
`misleading. .................................................................................................18
`
`Plaintiffs cannot challenge the statements on Kraft Heinz’s website
`because they do not allege that they visited or relied on that
`website. ......................................................................................................20
`
`Plaintiffs’ Breach of Warranty And Unjust Enrichment Claims Also Fail. ..........21
`
`Plaintiffs’ Request For Injunctive Relief Violates The First Amendment
`To The Extent It Seeks To Require Disclosures Or Warnings About
`Phthalates. ..............................................................................................................23
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:68
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.,
`973 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2013) .......................................................................................17
`
`Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco,
`916 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................24
`
`Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA,
`760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................24
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Ass’n Ben. Servs., Inc. v. Caremark RX, Inc.,
`493 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................21
`
`Axon v. Citrus World, Inc.,
`354 F. Supp 3d 170 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ......................................................................................19
`
`Backus v. Biscomerica Corp.,
`378 F. Supp. 3d 849 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................9
`
`Beasley v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,
`400 F. Supp. 3d 942 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................9
`
`Berry v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc.,
`497 F. Supp. 2d 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2007) ....................................................................................21
`
`Bildstein v. MasterCard Int’l, Inc.,
`329 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)......................................................................................14
`
`In re Bisphenol-A (BPA) Polycarbonate Plastic Products Liability Litigation,
`No. 08-1967, 2009 WL 3762965 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2009) ...................................................13
`
`Bober v. Glaxo Wellcome PLC,
`246 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners,
`682 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................4
`
`Catalano v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)......................................................................................23
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:69
`
`Chavez v. Church & Dwight Co.,
`No. 17-1948, 2018 WL 2238191 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2018) .....................................................21
`
`Chuang v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`No. 17-1875, 2017 WL 4286577 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2017) ..................................................20
`
`Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................21
`
`Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.,
`501 U.S. 663 (1991) .................................................................................................................23
`
`Decker v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.,
`No. 11-873, 2013 WL 12129281 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013) ...................................................15
`
`Delacruz v. Cytosport, Inc.,
`No. 11-3532, 2012 WL 1215243 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012) ...................................................19
`
`Doss v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`816 F. App’x 312 (11th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................7
`
`Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`529 U.S. 861 (2000) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`In re Gen. Mills Glyphosate Litig.,
`No. 16-2869, 2017 WL 2983877 (D. Minn. July 12, 2017) ........................................15, 18, 19
`
`In re Gen. Motors Corp. Anti-Lock Brake Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`966 F. Supp. 1525 (E.D. Mo. 1997).........................................................................................22
`
`Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos.,
`8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .........................................................................................21
`
`Hawkins v. Kellogg Co.,
`224 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ......................................................................................9
`
`Intel Corp. v. Hamidi,
`71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003) ...........................................................................................................24
`
`Johnson v. Organo Gold International, Inc.,
`No. 15-390, 2016 WL 2771124 (D. Del. May 13, 2016) ..................................................12, 13
`
`Kennedy v. Covidien, LP,
`No. 18-1907, 2019 WL 1429979 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) ...................................................22
`
`Kennedy v. Mondelez Global LLC,
`No. 19-302, 2020 WL 4006197 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2020) ................................................21, 22
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:70
`
`Kommer v. Bayer Consumer Health,
`252 F. Supp. 3d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)......................................................................................16
`
`Lateef v. Pharmavite LLC,
`No. 12-5611, 2012 WL 5269619 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2012) ...............................................12, 13
`
`Lugones v. Pete & Gerry’s Organic, LLC,
`440 F. Supp. 3d 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)......................................................................................17
`
`Manley v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`417 F. Supp. 3d 1114 (N.D. Ill. 2019) ...............................................................................14, 23
`
`Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC,
`160 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .......................................................................................6
`
`N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan,
`376 U.S. 254 (1964) .................................................................................................................23
`
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) .............................................................................................................23
`
`National Association of Wheat Growers v. Becerra,
`468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2020)....................................................................................24
`
`Nemphos v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc.,
`775 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Notification Techs., Inc. v. Parlant Tech., Inc.,
`No. 05-89, 2005 WL 8173034 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2005) ........................................................17
`
`Pappas v. Pella Corp.,
`363 Ill. App. 3d 795 (2006) .....................................................................................................17
`
`Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc.,
`961 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................11
`
`Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC,
`377 F. Supp. 3d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)....................................................................14, 15, 18, 19
`
`In re PepsiCo, Inc. Bottled Water Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`588 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................12
`
`PETA v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal., Inc.,
`No. 15-4301, 2016 WL 1642577 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016) ...................................................17
`
`Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc.,
`No. 10-1028, 2012 WL 5504011 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012)....................................................20
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:71
`
`Rollins, Inc. v. Butland,
`951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) ...............................................................................22
`
`Sidco Prods. Mktg., Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp.,
`858 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................22
`
`Silver v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
`760 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ....................................................................................16
`
`Smith v. Ford Motor Co.,
`462 F. App’x 660 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................15
`
`Spector v. Mondelēz Int’l, Inc.,
`178 F. Supp. 3d 657 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .............................................................................5, 21, 22
`
`Stemm v. Tootsie Roll Indus., Inc.,
`374 F. Supp. 3d 734 (N.D. Ill. 2019) .......................................................................................16
`
`Thompson v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`No. 18-60107, 2018 WL 5113052 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2018) ..................................................17
`
`Turek v. Gen. Mills, Inc.,
`662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`647 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................6
`
`USA Nutraceuticals Grp., Inc. v. BPI Sports, LLC,
`No. 15-80352, 2016 WL 4250668 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2016) ..................................................17
`
`Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp.
`944 F. Supp. 2d 877 (C.D. Cal. 2013) .......................................................................................6
`
`Weiss v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`418 F. Supp. 3d 1173 (S.D. Fla. 2019) ....................................................................................23
`
`Young v. Johnson & Johnson,
`525 F. App’x 179 (3d Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................13
`
`Yu v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
`No. 18-6664, 2020 WL 5910071 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2020) .....................................................10
`
`Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
`471 U.S. 626 (1985) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
`21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq..............................................................................................................12
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:72
`
`Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
`F.S.A. § 501.201 et seq. .......................................................................................................5, 16
`
`Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
`815 ILCS 505/1 et seq...................................................................................................... passim
`
`Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
`410 ILCS 620/1 et seq............................................................................................................5, 6
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ...................................................................................................5, 10, 16
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 .........................................................................................................5, 16
`
`Nutrition Labeling & Education Act,
`21 U.S.C. § 343 et seq........................................................................................................11, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`21 C.F.R. § 100.1(c)(4) ..................................................................................................................11
`
`21 C.F.R. § 101.100(a)(3) ....................................................................................................1, 12, 13
`
`21 C.F.R. § 175.105 .........................................................................................................................2
`
`21 C.F.R. § 175.300 .........................................................................................................................2
`
`21 C.F.R. § 176.170 .........................................................................................................................2
`
`21 C.F.R. § 177.1010 .......................................................................................................................2
`
`21. C.F.R. § 177.1200 ......................................................................................................................2
`
`21 C.F.R. § 177.1210 .......................................................................................................................2
`
`21 C.F.R. § 178.3740 ...............................................................................................................1, 3, 7
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This lawsuit alleges that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese—a familiar, convenient, and affordable
`
`comfort food that consumers have enjoyed for generations—is mislabeled because it purportedly
`
`contains chemicals known as “phthalates.” Plaintiffs claim that the presence of phthalates renders
`
`Kraft Macaroni & Cheese “adulterated,” that Kraft Heinz misleads consumers by failing to
`
`disclose the presence of phthalates, and that the presence of phthalates renders a wide variety of
`
`labeling statements—such as “No Artificial Dyes” and “The Taste You Love”—false and
`
`misleading. Plaintiffs’ claims are both preempted by federal law and implausible.
`
`At the outset, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit fails because the FDA specifically permits the presence of
`
`phthalates in the food supply and has expressly authorized the use of phthalates in food contact
`
`applications. See 21 C.F.R. § 178.3740 (permitting the use of phthalates in substances used for
`
`“producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or
`
`holding food”). The FDA has also rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that phthalates are unsafe at any
`
`level, and it has made clear that oral exposure to phthalates—such as DEHP, one of the most
`
`common phthalates—is safe at levels far higher than those allegedly found in Kraft Macaroni &
`
`Cheese. That not only defeats Plaintiffs’ claim of “adulteration,” but also undermines a key
`
`premise of their lawsuit—i.e., that even trace amounts of phthalates are “unsafe.”
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs’ claim that Kraft Heinz fails to disclose the presence of phthalates fails
`
`for two independent reasons. First, it is preempted by federal law, as the FDA has made clear that
`
`manufacturers need not disclose the presence of “[s]ubstances migrating to food from equipment
`
`or packaging or otherwise affecting food that are not food additives.” 21 C.F.R. §
`
`101.100(a)(3)(iii). In light of that regulation, any attempt to require the disclosure of phthalates
`
`would necessarily exceed the disclosure requirements set forth by federal law—which renders
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure-to-disclose claim preempted. Second, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:74
`
`the supposed presence of trace amounts of phthalates is material to a reasonable consumer, as they
`
`must allege to establish that Kraft Heinz was under a duty to disclose.
`
`Further, Plaintiffs cannot circumvent this result by framing this as a lawsuit premised on
`
`alleged affirmative misrepresentations. Plaintiffs claim that the alleged presence of phthalates
`
`renders a variety of statements on the labeling of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, and on Kraft Heinz’s
`
`website, affirmatively misleading. But Plaintiffs cannot point to a single representation on the
`
`packaging that is contrary to, or even inconsistent with, the presence of phthalates. To the contrary,
`
`these statements are either true (e.g., “NO Artificial Preservatives”) or puffery (e.g., “The Taste
`
`You Love”). And to the extent Plaintiffs challenge any statements on Kraft Heinz’s website, those
`
`claims fail because they do not allege that they relied on—or even visited—that website.
`
`Plaintiffs’ core theories of deception are implausible and preempted, and their tag-along
`
`claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment are independently defective. Moreover, even
`
`if this Court were to permit this lawsuit to proceed, the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek—an order
`
`requiring Kraft Heinz to disclose the presence of phthalates or warn consumers about their
`
`purported risks—would violate the First Amendment by compelling speech that is not purely
`
`factual and uncontroversial. This Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Phthalates Are Common Chemicals And Pose No Health Hazards At Trace Levels.
`
`As the FDA has noted, phthalates “are a group of chemicals used in hundreds of products,
`
`such as . . . food packaging, pharmaceuticals, blood bags and tubing, and personal care products.”
`
`RJN Ex. 1. The FDA expressly permits their use in a wide variety of food manufacturing and
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:75
`
`packaging applications.1 Indeed, the FDA has issued a regulation stating that certain substances,
`
`including numerous phthalates, “may be safely used as plasticizers in polymeric substances used
`
`in the manufacture of articles or components of articles intended for use in producing,
`
`manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food.”
`
`21 C.F.R. § 178.3740 (emphasis added).
`
`The FDA has not set a specific threshold for the level of phthalates allowed in food
`
`products. However, the FDA and other government agencies have repeatedly concluded that trace
`
`amounts of phthalates are safe and pose no harm. For example, in assessing the risks associated
`
`with plastics in medical devices, the FDA has concluded that, for oral exposure, the “tolerable
`
`intake” of the phthalate Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (“DEHP”) is approximately 0.04 mg/kg/day.
`
`See RJN Ex. 2. In other words, the “tolerable intake” of DEHP would be approximately 2
`
`milligrams per day for a smaller person who weighed 110 pounds, approximately 3 milligrams per
`
`day for a medium-sized person who weighed 165 pounds, or approximately 4 milligrams per day
`
`for a larger person who weighed 220 pounds.2 See id. Thus, the FDA appears to recognize that
`
`trace amounts of phthalates are associated with no health harms whatsoever.
`
`1 See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 175.105 (“Adhesives”), 175.300 (“Resinous and Polymeric Coatings”),
`176.170 (“Components of Paper and Paperboard in Contact with Aqueous and Fatty Foods”),
`177.1010 (“Acrylic and Modified Acrylic Plastics, Semirigid and Rigid”), 177.1200
`(“Cellophane”), 177.1210 (“Closures with Sealing Gaskets for Food Containers”).
`2 Even California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1983 (“Proposition 65”),
`a stringent consumer right-to-know statute focusing on chemical exposure, recognizes that
`exposure to trace amounts of phthalates presents no material risk of harm. See RJN Ex. 3 (setting
`a “No Significant Risk Level” (“NRSL”) of 0.310 milligrams per day for DEHP, a NSRL of 0.146
`milligrams per day for the phthalate diisonyl phthalate (“DINP”), and a “Maximum Allowable
`Dose Level” between 0.410 to 2.2 milligrams per day for oral exposure to four separate phthalates).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:76
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs Challenge The Presence of Phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese.
`
`This lawsuit concerns the alleged presence of phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, a
`
`well-known comfort food sold in an iconic blue box and consumed by millions of Americans. See
`
`RJN Ex. 4 (labeling of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese). Notably, the packaging does not state that
`
`Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is “natural,” “unprocessed,” or free of phthalates. Instead, it highlights
`
`the product’s cheesy flavor and notes that it has “the taste you love.” See id. The box also notes
`
`that the product contains no artificial dyes, preservatives, or flavors—which Plaintiffs do not
`
`dispute. See id.
`
`In 2017, the Coalition for Safer Food Processing and Packaging “published a study . . . that
`
`tested, among other cheese products, cheese powder in ten varieties of macaroni and cheese.”
`
`Compl. ¶ 21; see also RJN Ex. 5.3 That study purported to find an average of 106 parts per billion
`
`(or approximately .106 milligrams per kilogram of dry product) of phthalates in the ten tested
`
`varieties of macaroni & cheese, with a range between 34 and 218 parts per billion. See RJN Ex.
`
`5. The study also purported to find that DEHP was found more often, and at much higher
`
`concentrations, than other phthalates. See Compl. ¶ 21. And while the study did not state that it
`
`considered Kraft Macaroni & Cheese or identify the amount of phthalates allegedly present in
`
`Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, Plaintiffs allege that the Coalition subsequently sent Kraft Heinz a letter
`
`regarding the presence of phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, leading Plaintiffs to assume that
`
`the study included the product. See id. ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiffs do not allege they have conducted any
`
`3 Because Plaintiffs repeatedly cite the Coalition’s study and rely on it as the basis for their claim
`that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese contains phthalates, this Court can take judicial notice of the
`contents of that study in ruling on this motion. See Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners,
`682 F.3d 687, 690 (7th Cir. 2012) (“It is well settled that in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a
`court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss . . . if they are referred to in the
`plaintiff’s complaint and are central to his claim.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:77
`
`of their own testing, have personal knowledge of any testing of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, or any
`
`understanding of whether the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese they purchased contained phthalates.
`
`Nearly four years after Plaintiffs contend the Coalition possibly found that Kraft Macaroni
`
`& Cheese tested in 2017 contained trace levels of phthalates, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against
`
`Kraft Heinz. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs characterize phthalates as “toxic industrial chemicals.”
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 8, 33. Plaintiffs repeatedly claim that phthalates are “dangerous,” “harmful,” and
`
`“unhealthy,” and, without any legal basis whatsoever, allege that the alleged presence of phthalates
`
`renders the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Plaintiffs never tested “adulterated” and illegal to sell. Id.
`
`¶¶ 144-45, 153-54. Plaintiffs also claim that Kraft Heinz misleads consumers because it “never
`
`disclose[s] anything about phthalates on the Products’ packaging.” Id. ¶ 24; see also id. ¶¶ 10-11
`
`(referring to “material omissions” on the packaging); id. ¶ 31 (“Defendant chose to omit from all
`
`packaging that its Kraft Mac & Cheese Products contain (or have a risk of containing) dangerous
`
`phthalates . . . .”). And Plaintiffs assert that various phrases on the packaging of Kraft Macaroni
`
`& Cheese—including “The Taste You Love,” “NO Artificial Flavors,” “NO Artificial
`
`Preservatives,” and “NO Artificial Dyes”—are misleading because they “lead[] reasonable
`
`consumers to believe the product is wholesome and healthy and does not contain dangerous
`
`chemicals like phthalates.” Id. ¶ 32.
`
`Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive
`
`and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. § 501.201 et seq. (“FDUTPA”); violations of New York
`
`General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350; violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
`
`Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. (“ICFA”); violations of the Illinois Food,
`
`Drug and Cosmetic Act, 410 ILCS 620/1, et seq. (“IFDCA”); unjust enrichment; breach of express
`
`warranty; and breach of implied warranty. Compl. ¶¶ 50-155. Plaintiffs purport to assert these
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:78
`
`claims on behalf of themselves, a putative nationwide class of consumers, and two subclasses
`
`consisting of consumers from Florida and New York. See id. ¶¶ 39-41.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
`
`accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Spector v. Mondelēz Int’l,
`
`Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 657, 661 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
`
`court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has
`
`not show[n]—that the pleader is entitled to relief under Rule 8.” Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC,
`
`160 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1045 (N.D. Ill. 2016), aff’d, 653 F. App’x 482 (7th Cir. 2016) (citations and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the plaintiff must “allege more by way of factual
`
`content to ‘nudg[e]’ his claim” of unlawful action “across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiffs
`
`do not meet that pleading standard here.
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs’ “Adulteration” Claims, Including Their IFDCA Claim, Are Preempted
`Because The FDA Permits Phthalates In Food And Regards Them As Safe.
`
`Throughout their complaint, Plaintiffs characterize phthalates as “harmful,” “dangerous,”
`
`and “toxic.” Indeed, their claim under the IFDCA is premised on the allegation that the supposed
`
`presence of phthalates renders Kraft Macaroni & Cheese “adulterated” and “injurious to health.”
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 144-45. These allegations are not only implausible, but are also preempted because
`
`they conflict with the FDA’s determination that phthalates can safely be used in food contact
`
`applications.
`
` “[U]nder the Supremacy Clause, federal law ‘preempts state laws that interfere with, or
`
`are contrary to, federal law.’” Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago Transit Auth., 647 F.3d 675, 678 (7th
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-01845 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/07/21 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:79
`
`Cir. 2011). To that end, the Supreme Court has held that state-law claims are preempted where
`
`the application of state law would “prevent or frustrate the accomplishment of a federal objective.”
`
`Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 873 (2000) (holding that regulations promulgated
`
`by a federal administrative agency preempted tort claims under state law). Consequently, a
`
`plaintiff’s claims are preempted if the defendant’s alleged conduct is “expressly permitted by FDA
`
`regulations.” Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp. 944 F. Supp. 2d 877, 889 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
`
`Here, Plaintiffs allege that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is “adulterated” because it allegedly
`
`contains trace amounts of phthalates, which they characterize as “toxic” and “injurious to health.”4
`
`Compl. ¶ 145. But the FDA has expressly permitted the use of phthalates in food contact
`
`applications, reflecting its understanding that some amount of phthalates inevitably ends up in the
`
`food supply. See 21 C.F.R. § 178.3740. And while Plaintiffs claim that the FDA has not set a
`
`ceiling on the amount of phthalates that is safe to consume in food (see Compl. ¶ 25), it has
`
`determined that the risk associated with oral exposure to phthalates is exceedingly low.
`
`Specifically, the FDA has concluded that the “tolerable intake” of the phthalate DEHP is
`
`0.04 mg/kg/day, which would range between 2 and 4 mg per day of phthalates for adults who
`
`weigh between 50 kilograms (approximately 110 pounds) and 100 kilograms (approximately 220
`
`pounds). See RJN Ex. 2. By comparison, the report Plaintiffs cite in their Complaint indicates
`
`that, of the 10 undisclosed boxes tested, the average concentration of phthalates found in the cheese
`
`powder in all ten varieties of packaged macaroni and cheese was 0.106 milligrams of all phthalates
`
`4 Notably, Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—allege that the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese they purchased
`contained phthalates; instead, they alleged only that the products they purchased “

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket