Sugawara v. Pepsico, Inc. - No. 2:08-cv-01335-MCE-JFM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43127 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2009)

Rule:

California's Unfair Competition Law prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Additionally, the false advertising law prohibits any unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. On the other, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Facts:

Plaintiff Janine Sugawara was an individual consumer and resident of California. Defendant Pepsico, Inc. manufactures, markets, and promotes "Cap'n Crunch with Crunchberries" cereal. In actuality, the product contained no berries of any kind. Plaintiff contends that the defendants' marketing of the product was deceptive and likely to mislead and deceive a reasonable consumer. Since the plaintiff began purchasing the product, the Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environments published the results of a study examining the ingredients of widely advertised foods with references to fruit on the packaging. The study concluded that despite advertising and packaging that suggests the presence of fruit, the product at issue here, contains no fruit at all.  Plaintiff initiated this putative class action and filed the complaint alleging causes of action arising under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., and 17500, et seq., for intentional misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of an implied warranty, and violation of the consumer legal remedies action, California Civil Code § 1770.

Issue:

Should the plaintiff’s complaint be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that plaintiff failed to state Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, or Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims as a matter of law. In this case, while the challenged packaging contains the word berries it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term crunch. This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a crunch berry. Furthermore, the “Crunchberries” depicted on the PDP are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the PDP clearly states both that the Product contains sweetened corn & oat cereal and that the cereal is enlarged to show texture. Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist. Plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation claim fares no better, plaintiff made no allegations indicating that the challenged packaging was false or contained false statements as previously discussed, the packaging is not misleading and is entirely unlikely to deceive. Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim failed as a matter of law. The court ruled that defendant did not promise the plaintiff that the product contained fruit, nor did the product contain anything other than that which was actually expressly warranted. Likewise, the plaintiff's breach of implied warranty claim fails as well.