Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Stefanie Jill Fogel and Mary B. Langowski
A federal judge in California has given the go-ahead for most claims in a lawsuit against Whole Foods Market based on the retailer’s use of the term “all natural” to proceed. The suit, filed in November 2013, accuses Whole Foods of misleadingly labeling baked goods as “all natural” when they contain the leavening agent sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP). In his ruling on June 2, US District Judge Vince Chhabria rejected Whole Foods’ defense that the claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. It was plausible, he said, for a reasonable consumer to interpret the words “all natural” to exclude a synthetic compound such as SAPP.
Garrison v. Whole Foods Mkt. Group, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75271 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2014, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers].
This information is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.
Copyright © 2014 DLA Piper. All rights reserved.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site