Our notable ruling roundup aims to keep our readers up to date on recent rulings in the food and consumer packaged goods space.
Jonathan Rusoff, et al. v. The Happy Group, Inc., No. 24-7706 (9thCir. August 17, 2026): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Northern District of California court’s class certification order in an action alleging that the defendant deceptively labeled and marketed its eggs by promising that its hens are “pasture raised on over 8 acres.” The plaintiffs alleged that the statement was misleading because it implicitly promised compliance with purported industry standards established by certain nonprofit groups, even though the defendant did not identify either standard on its packaging. The Ninth Circuit held that, after the district court properly excluded the plaintiffs’ purported industry standards expert as methodologically unreliable, the plaintiffs lacked common evidence that “pasture raised” has a single, dominant meaning or that reasonable consumers understand the term to signify compliance with those private standards. Although the district court found common evidence of materiality and damages, the Ninth Circuit concluded that those issues could not overcome the absence of classwide proof of deception, a central element of the plaintiffs’ claims. Read the order here.
Nathan Vidal, et al. v. The Hershey Company, No. 24-60831 (S.D. Fla. September 16, 2026): The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a putative class action alleging the defendant deceptively labeled and marketed its Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the products were marketed as a pumpkin-shaped chocolate with carved facial features when the candies lacked carved features. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a concrete economic injury sufficient for Article III standing as their asserted disappointment over the absence of facial designs was subjective. The court also found the pleaded price-premium theory inadequate because the plaintiffs relied on comparisons between pumpkin products and regular Reese’s cups sold at other retailers, rather than alleging facts showing the value or price differential between decorated and undecorated pumpkin-shaped products at the stores where they purchased the candy. Read the order here.
To learn more about our team and how we serve our clients, visit our Consumer Products Litigation & Regulation Page.
