`
`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 “