Suit Over Citric Acid in Kraft Mac & Cheese Survives Challenge
"[The] plaintiffs have described several respects in which artificial citric acid differs from natural citric acid. Dismissal on this basis is thus inappropriate," U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland said, clearing the way for a products liability suit to proceed against Kraft Heinz for marketing its macaroni and cheese product as having no preservatives.
November 14, 2024 at 03:37 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge in Chicago sided with consumers this week in a products liability suit, finding enough support alleging that Kraft Heinz Co. falsely labeled its macaroni and cheese as having no preservatives.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mary M. Rowland for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Kraft's motion to dismiss class action fraud allegations brought by consumers who take issue with the "mac & cheese" products containing preservatives such as citric acid, sodium phosphate or sodium triphosphate.
In the case captioned Hayes v. Kraft Heinz, the Chicago-headquartered food conglomerate had argued that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the ingredients function as preservatives, among other claims.
The district court, however, disagreed, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently drew a connection between the industry practice of using artifically derived citric acid and Kraft's practices.
"Plaintiffs also cite to scholarly articles describing both ingredients' role in preserving food, as well as [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] guidance that describes citric acid as a preservative. These allegations are enough to withstand a motion to dismiss," Rowland wrote, looking to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in Mason v. Reed's, in part because of the detailed allegations that the FDA sent warning letters "that suggested citric acid was a preservative" and an explanation on how it acts as a preservative in food products.
The plaintiff, David Hayes, filed the suit in DuPage County Circuit Court before it was removed to federal court in December by Kraft's attorney, Dean Panos, a partner at Jenner & Block in Chicago. Kraft subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the class action suit led Hayes and two others for failing to allege that the ingredients are artificial or that they function as preservatives.
Kraft relied on the Illinois federal court's 2019 decision inTarzian v. Kraft. In Tarzian, the plaintiffs described the process by which citric acid could be cultivated through a synthetic process from a type of black mold, Aspergillus niger, and claimed that it was uneconomical for food producers to use natural citric acid, which can be extracted from fruit. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did not specifically allege that Kraft used the artificially produced citric acid and only alleged that the industry relied on the "commonly used" citric acid cultivation.
Rowland said that wasn't true for the present case.
"The court does not dispute Tarzian's reasoning and agrees that simply alleging a 'common industry practice' is insufficient to state a claim. However, the court believes that plaintiffs here have drawn a sufficient connection between the industry practice of using artificial citric acid and defendants’ practices," Rowland wrote, noting that the Hayes plaintiffs incorporated several academic studies and articles describing the history behind citric acid and the explosion of its artificially derived varieties.
"Plaintiffs cite articles explaining that '[o]ver 90% of the citric acid used around the globe today is produced from fermentation.' Another article explains that approximately 99% of the manufactured (as opposed to naturally occurring) citric acid in the world is cultivated from Aspergillus niger. The sources in plaintiffs’ complaint further explain that naturally occurring citric acid was used commercially until approximately 1916, where production peaked at around 17,500 tons a year. A few years later, a food chemist discovered that citric acid could be extracted from Aspergillus niger, and today, over 2 million tons are produced a year," Rowland said, finding the plaintiffs' complaint "goes beyond simple allegations of a common industry practice."
Kraft had further argued that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that its products contain citric acid that was derived artificially, pointing to a similar requirement from a ruling earlier this year from the Southern District of New York in Valencia v. Snapple Beverage.
"But plaintiffs’ allegations here do not suffer from the same defect. Plaintiffs’ complaint explains, for example, that 'unlike natural citric acid,' citric acid derived from Aspergillus niger 'is highly inflammatory.' Plaintiffs further allege that '[c]onsumption of manufactured citric acid has been associated with adverse health events like joint pain with swelling and stiffness, muscular and stomach pain, as well as shortness of breath,'" Rowland wrote. "Unlike in Valencia, plaintiffs have described several respects in which artificial citric acid differs from natural citric acid. Dismissal on this basis is thus inappropriate."
The Hayes plaintiffs are represented by local attorney David B. Levin of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, as well as Craig Straub, a partner at Crosner Legal in Beverly Hills. The California firm is leading similar cases that take issue with Kraft's claims that there are no artificial flavors or preservatives in its macaroni and cheese products, as well as claims against Ocean Spray Cranberry juice.
Messages seeking comment were not immediately returned from the plaintiffs' attorneys or from Panos on behalf of Kraft.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Misconduct' From Monsanto Lawyer Prompts Mistrial in Chicago Roundup Case
3 minute readManufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250