Johnson-Jack v. Health-Ade LLC

Johnson-Jack v. Health-Ade LLC

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: ECF No. 18

INTRODUCTION

In this consumer-products mislabeling class action, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant's use of the term "Health-Ade" to market kombucha-inspired beverages, including Health-Ade Kombucha, Health-Ade Plus, Health-Ade Booch Pop, Health-Ade pop, and Health-Ade Mixers, violates California law. The plaintiffs' theory is that the term "Health-Ade" is misleading because it implies that the defendant's products are healthy when, according to the plaintiffs, they are not because they contain sugar.¹ ] Most courts in this district have found that mislabeling claims based on this theory (i.e., that it is deceptive to market products with added sugar as healthy based on studies linking excess sugar [*2]  consumption to disease) can survive a motion to dismiss and that the term "healthy" is not puffery. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a controlling decision. Thus, the court denies the defendant's motion to dismiss.²

ANALYSIS

The named plaintiffs allege that they regularly purchased Health-Ade Kombucha during the class period.³ According to the complaint, the product's label is misleading because it implies that the drinks are healthy when the "high sugar content" makes the drinks unhealthy.⁴ The plaintiffs assert claims for relief under the (1) California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., (i.e., Unfair Competition Law or UCL) for unfair business practices, (2) California Business and Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq., (i.e., False Advertising Law or FAL) for deceptive advertising, and (3) California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq., (i.e., Consumer Legal Remedies Act or CLRA) for deceptive practices.⁵ They also assert claims for breach of implied and express warranties.⁶

The defendant, Health-Ade LLC, asks the court to dismiss the complaint for several reasons. Its main argument is that the term "Health-Ade" is not misleading because the amount of sugar in the products is accurately disclosed in the nutrition facts box and ingredients list on the label.⁷ The defendant also contends that the term "health" is non-actionable [*3]  puffery and that federal laws concerning food labeling preempt the plaintiffs' claims.⁸ Finally, the defendant contends that the plaintiffs do not (1) satisfy the heightened pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (2) have grounds to seek injunctive relief because they have an adequate remedy at law, or (3) have standing to assert claims based on products they did not purchase.⁹

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.