`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck NY 11021-3104
`Telephone: (516) 268-7080
`Fax: (516) 234-7800
`
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lauren Yu, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`1:20-cv-08512
`
`- against -
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Froneri US, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`Plaintiff by attorneys allege upon information and belief, except for allegations pertaining
`
`to plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1.
`
`Froneri US, Inc. (“defendant”) manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
`
`vanilla ice cream bars purporting to be dipped in milk chocolate and covered with almonds and
`
`toffee under the Häagen-Dazs brand (“Product”).
`
`2.
`
`The Product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties
`
`and is sold in 3 OZ bars, individually and in packages of three.
`
`3.
`
`The relevant front label representations include “Häagen-Dazs,” “Coffee Almond
`
`Crunch Ice Cream Bars,” “”Coffee Ice Cream Dipped in Rich Milk Chocolate, Almonds and
`
`Toffee” and an image of the Product.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representation that the Product
`
`contains, and is dipped in “milk chocolate” is false, deceptive and misleading because the
`
`purported chocolate contains ingredients consumers do not expect in chocolate – vegetable oils.
`
`5.
`
`Chocolate is made from cacao beans, which are not consumed by themselves – they
`
`are subject to fermentation, drying and roasting, which produces cacao nibs.
`
`6.
`
`The nibs are then ground to produce cocoa mass or chocolate liquor, which is
`
`separated into components of cocoa solids and cocoa butter.
`
`7.
`
`Consumers want chocolate in chocolate products to come from a real source, i.e.,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 13
`
`from cacao beans.
`
`8.
`
`Chocolate (from cacao beans) provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth
`
`mouthfeel compared to other ingredients which substitute for chocolate, like vegetable oils, that
`
`provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste.
`
`9.
`
`From the time chocolate was first made, companies have adulterated chocolate
`
`products with synthetics and substitutes such as cheaper, lower quality vegetable oils.
`
`10. Congress directed the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to establish standards
`
`and rules to combat the marketing of foods from which traditional constituents are removed or
`
`new or different (often cheaper and artificial) ingredients are substituted.
`
`11.
`
`In terms of chocolate products, this entails the substitution of more valuable
`
`ingredients like cacao fat and replacement with less valuable, lower quality ingredients like
`
`vegetable oils.
`
`12. Chocolate has specific labeling requirements because it is uniquely vulnerable to
`
`being adulterated, one of the most popular and one of most costly foods.
`
`13. The chocolate standards have been in place for over fifty (50) years, and companies’
`
`adherence to these regulations have benefitted consumers who otherwise would not be able to rely
`
`on a product’s representations.
`
`14. Regulations regarding chocolate effectively establish custom and practice in the
`
`industry so that consumers’ experience with that custom and practice primes them to infer from a
`
`product’s labeling whether a product contains chocolate or is a chocolate mixture (compound)
`
`which contains vegetable oils.
`
`15. Over ten years ago in response to a proposal to modify the chocolate standards to
`
`allow vegetable oils, industry leader Mars Wrigley was adamant in its opposition, because it
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 13
`
`recognized what consumers wanted:
`
`At Mars, the consumer is our boss, and American consumers are passionate about
`chocolate. They don’t want anyone to change the chocolate they’ve enjoyed for
`generations…As a privately held company, we have the freedom to invest in the
`highest quality chocolate and deliver what consumers want.1
`
`16. For example, the optional ingredients in milk chocolate include cacao fat, nutritive
`
`carbohydrate sweeteners, spices, natural and artificial flavorings, dairy ingredients and
`
`emulsifying agents but not vegetable oils. 21 C.F.R. § 163.124(b).
`
`17. Since the Product’s front label represents the Product contains “rich milk chocolate”
`
`without qualification, consumers expect that it only has chocolate ingredients, when this is not
`
`accurate.
`
`18. This conclusion is consistent with a consumer survey indicating consumers
`
`understand the Product’s representations, viz, “rich milk chocolate” to refer to a chocolate product
`
`which contains cacao ingredients and not vegetable oils or fats.
`
`19. However, the representation of “rich milk chocolate” is misleading and at best, a
`
`“half-truth,” because the chocolate part of the Product contains ingredients not found in real
`
`chocolate – “COCONUT OIL.”
`
`INGREDIENTS: COFFEE ICE CREAM: CREAM, SKIM MILK,
`SUGAR, EGG YOLKS, COFFEE. MILK CHOCOLATE AND
`VEGETABLE OIL COATING WITH ALMONDS AND TOFFEE:
`MILK CHOCOLATE
`(SUGAR, WHOLE MILK POWDER,
`CHOCOLATE, COCOA BUTTER, SOY LECITHIN, VANILLA
`EXTRACT), COCONUT OIL, ALMONDS ROASTED IN VEGETABLE
`
`
`
`
`1 Mars US Announces Support for Current Chocolate Standard of Identity, Press Release, September 17, 2007.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 5 of 13
`
`OIL (ALMONDS, SAFFLOWER OIL), TOFFEE (CORN SYRUP,
`SUGAR, BUTTER [CREAM, SALT], BROWN SUGAR, ALMONDS,
`BAKING SODA, SOY LECITHIN, SALT).
`
`20. The Product does not designate the chocolate as “milk chocolate and vegetable oil
`
`coating” on the front label, which would tell consumers what they are buying. See 21 C.F.R. §
`
`163.155(c) (“Alternatively, the common or usual name of the vegetable derived fat ingredient may
`
`be used in the name of the food, e.g., “milk chocolate and ___ oil coating”, the blank being filled
`
`in with the common or usual name of the specific vegetable fat used.”).
`
`21. Consumers do not expect to have to resort to the fine print on a product’s ingredient
`
`list to find information they are accustomed to seeing on the front label.
`
`22. Defendant’s branding and packaging of the Product is designed to – and does –
`
`deceive, mislead, and defraud plaintiff and consumers.
`
`23. Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
`
`absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like
`
`plaintiff.
`
`24. The value of the Product that plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less
`
`than its value as represented by defendant.
`
`25. Had plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
`
`Product or would have paid less for them.
`
`26. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium
`
`price, approximately no less than $5.99 for three 3 OZ bars, excluding tax, compared to other
`
`similar products represented in a non-misleading way.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`27.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (Class Action Fairness Act
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 6 of 13
`
`of 2005 or “CAFA”).
`
`28. Under CAFA, district courts have “original federal jurisdiction over class actions
`
`involving (1) an aggregate amount in controversy of at least $5,000,000; and (2) minimal
`
`diversity[.]” Gold v. New York Life Ins. Co., 730 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2013).
`
`29. Plaintiff Lauren Yu is a citizen of New York.
`
`30. Defendant Froneri US, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Oakland, Alameda County, California and therefore is a citizen of California.
`
`31. “Minimal diversity” exists because plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different
`
`states.
`
`32. Venue is proper in this judicial district because a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, viz, the purchase of the Product and the misleading
`
`representations relied upon by plaintiff.
`
`33. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant because it conducts and transacts
`
`business, contracts to supply and supplies goods within New York.
`
`Parties
`
`34. Plaintiff Lauren Yu is a citizen of New York, New York County, New York.
`
`35. Defendant Froneri US, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Oakland, California, Alameda County.
`
`36. Defendant operates over five hundred high-end grocery stores, which sells high-
`
`value groceries.
`
`37. During the relevant statutes of limitations, plaintiff purchased the Product within her
`
`district and/or State for personal consumption and/or use in reliance on the representations the
`
`Product contained milk chocolate, understood as not containing vegetable oils.
`
`38. Plaintiff Lauren Yu purchased the Product at stores including Key Food, 52 Avenue
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 7 of 13
`
`A, New York, NY 10009 and Rite Aid, 81 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10003, during May, June
`
`and July of 2020, among other instances.
`
`39. Plaintiff bought the Product because she liked the product type for its intended use
`
`and expected it would only contain a chocolate coating, because that is what the front label said
`
`and because chocolate is understood by consumers to not contain vegetable oils.
`
`40. Plaintiff would buy the Product again if assured it did not contain vegetable oils and
`
`was real chocolate.
`
`Class Allegations
`
`41. The class will consist of all purchasers of the Product who reside in New York during
`
`the applicable statutes of limitations.
`
`42. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief based on Rule 23(b) in addition to a
`
`monetary relief class.
`
`43. Common questions of law or fact predominate and include whether defendant’s
`
`representations were and are misleading and if plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages.
`
`44. Plaintiff's claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were
`
`subjected to the same unfair and deceptive representations and actions.
`
`45. Plaintiff is an adequate representatives because her interests do not conflict with
`
`other members.
`
`46. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`47.
`
`Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.
`
`48. Plaintiff's counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 8 of 13
`
`and intends to adequately and fairly protect class members’ interests.
`
`49. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`New York General Business Law (“GBL”), §§ 349 & 350
`(Consumer Protection Statutes)
`
`50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`51. Plaintiff and class members desired to purchase and consume products which were
`
`as described and marketed by defendant and expected by reasonable consumers, given the product
`
`type.
`
`52. Defendant’s acts and omissions are not unique to the parties and have a broader
`
`impact on the public.
`
`53. Defendant misrepresented the substantive, quality, compositional, organoleptic
`
`and/or nutritional attributes of the Product.
`
`54. The presence of chocolate – understood as excluding vegetable oils and vegetable
`
`fats – has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because chocolate
`
`provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to vegetable oils, which
`
`provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste. The amount and proportion
`
`of the characterizing component, chocolate, and the exclusion of vegetable oils, has a material
`
`bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because consumers are willing to pay more
`
`for them.
`
`55. Plaintiff relied on the statements, omissions and representations of defendant, and
`
`defendant knew or should have known the falsity of same.
`
`56. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 9 of 13
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`58. Defendant misrepresented the substantive, quality, compositional, organoleptic
`
`and/or nutritional attributes of the Product.
`
`59. The presence of chocolate – understood as excluding vegetable oils and vegetable
`
`fats – has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because chocolate
`
`provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to vegetable oils, which
`
`provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste. The amount and proportion
`
`of the characterizing component, chocolate, and the exclusion of vegetable oils, has a material
`
`bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because consumers are willing to pay more
`
`for them.
`
`60. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive marketing of the
`
`Product and knew or should have known same were false or misleading.
`
`61. This duty is based on defendant’s position as an entity which has held itself out as
`
`having special knowledge and experience in the production, service and/or sale of the product type.
`
`62. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in defendant, a well-known and respected brand or entity in this sector.
`
`63. Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent
`
`misrepresentations and omissions, which served to induce and did induce, the purchase of the
`
`Product.
`
`64. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 10 of 13
`
`Breaches of Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability and
`Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`66. The Product was manufactured, labeled and sold by defendant and warranted to
`
`plaintiff and class members that they possessed substantive, functional, nutritional, qualitative,
`
`compositional, organoleptic, sensory, physical and other attributes which they did not.
`
`67. The presence of chocolate – understood as excluding vegetable oils and vegetable
`
`fats – has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because chocolate
`
`provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to vegetable oils, which
`
`provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste. The amount and proportion
`
`of the characterizing component, chocolate, and the exclusion of vegetable oils, has a material
`
`bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because consumers are willing to pay more
`
`for them.
`
`68. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Product.
`
`69. This duty is based, in part, on defendant’s position as one of the most recognized
`
`companies in the nation in this sector.
`
`70. Plaintiff provided or will provide notice to defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`retailers and their employees.
`
`71. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these misrepresentations
`
`due to numerous complaints by consumers to its main office over the past several years regarding
`
`the Product, of the type described here.
`
`72. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due to
`
`defendant’s actions and were not merchantable.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 11 of 13
`
`73. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`Fraud
`
`74. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`75. The presence of chocolate – understood as excluding vegetable oils and vegetable
`
`fats – has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because chocolate
`
`provides greater satiety and a creamy and smooth mouthfeel compared to vegetable oils, which
`
`provide less satiety, a waxy and oily mouthfeel and leave an aftertaste. The amount and proportion
`
`of the characterizing component, chocolate, and the exclusion of vegetable oils, has a material
`
`bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Product because consumers are willing to pay more
`
`for them.
`
`76. Defendant’s fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately identify the
`
`Product on the front label and ingredient list, when it knew its statements were neither true nor
`
`accurate and misled consumers.
`
`77. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the Product or paid as much
`
`if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.
`
`78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`79. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented
`
`and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of plaintiff and class members, who seek
`
`restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment:
`
`1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying plaintiff as representative and the
`
`undersigned as counsel for the class;
`
`2. Entering preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing defendant to correct the
`
`challenged practices to comply with the law;
`
`3. Injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices and
`
`representations, and restitution and disgorgement for members of the class pursuant to the
`
`applicable laws;
`
`4. Awarding monetary damages and interest pursuant to the common law and other statutory
`
`claims;
`
`5. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for plaintiff's attorneys and
`
`experts; and
`
`6. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: October 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`/s/Spencer Sheehan
`Spencer Sheehan
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck NY 11021-3104
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`Fax: (516) 234-7800
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`E.D.N.Y. # SS-8533
`S.D.N.Y. # SS-2056
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-08512 Document 1 Filed 10/13/20 Page 13 of 13
`
`1:20-cv-08512
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`
`
`Lauren Yu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
` - against -
`
`
`Froneri US, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
`Great Neck NY 11021-3104
`Tel: (516) 268-7080
`Fax: (516) 234-7800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of
`New York State, certifies that, upon information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
`under the circumstances, the contentions contained in the annexed documents are not frivolous.
`
`Dated: October 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Spencer Sheehan
` Spencer Sheehan
`
`
`
`
`
`