N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LOR I M YER S, an individual, on be ha lf of he rse lf a nd a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. STARB UC K S C ORPOR ATION, a W a shington C orporation,

De fe nda n t,
and M AR S W R IGLEY C ONFEC TIONER Y US, LLC , A De la

ware C orporation, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-55930 D.C . No. 5:20-c v-00335-JWH-SHK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John W . Holc o m

b, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2024 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C HR ISTEN, a nd VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
JUN 24 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Lori M y e rs sue d De fe nda nt-Appe lle e M ars Wrigle y C onfe c tiona

ry US, LLC (“ M ars” ) unde r the C a lifornia C onsum e rs Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t a nd C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w. M y e rs c l a im e d the la

be l of M ars’ s Dove Dark C hoc olate produc ts m isle d he r to be lie ve the produc ts we re m a d e without e m

ploy ing c hild sla

ve la bor or c ontributing to ra

infore st de fore sta

tion. Ac c ording to My e rs’ s c om pla int, “ C hild sla

v e ry is undisputa

bly e nde m ic in c oc oa ha rve s ting in W e s t Afric a ,” and “ it is a lso we ll-se ttle d tha t the ‘ C h oc olate industry drive s ra infore st disa s te r in [the ] Ivory C oa st.’ ” (C i tation om itte d.) “ [A] t the
c urre nt pa c e of de fore sta

tion the re will be no fore st le ft in the Ivory C o a s t by 2030.” M y e rs a lle g e s tha

t M a rs pla c e s the following la

be l on its Dove

Da rk C hoc olate produc t s but not on its othe r c h o c olate produc ts: “ W e buy c oc oa from R a infore st Allia

nc e C e rtifie dTM fa

rm s, tra c e a

ble from the farm s into our fa c tory .” M y e rs c la im s this la

be l le d he r to be lie ve the c om pa ny ’ s Dove Da

rk C hoc olate produc ts c onta i n som e am ount of c oc o a tra c e a b le to fa rm s tha t do not e m

ploy c hild sla ve la bor or c ontribute to de fore sta tion in W e st Afric a . Ac c ording to My e rs’ s
c om pla i nt, howe ve r, M ars in fa c t c an tra c e only a fra c tion of thec oc oa

it buy s to the fa rm s whe re the c oc oa

be a n s origina te d, a nd it inte rm ingle s the se tra c e a ble

2be ans with untra c e a ble be ans in its fa c torie s “ so tha t no produc t c an be gua

rante e d to c o nta in a

ny fa ir tra de be ans a

t a ll.” The distric t c ourt dismisse d M y e rs’ s c l a im s a ga inst M a rs. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

n d m ay a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Silk

v . Bond, 65 F.4th 445, 456 (9th C ir. 2023). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt inc orre c tly dism isse d M y e rs’ s c om

pla int on theground that the la be l on M ars’ s Dove Da

rk C hoc o late produc t s is “ c are fully worde d” and

“ te c hnic a lly

true .” Unde r C a lifornia

la w , lite ra l truth is not a

de fe nse . As our
c irc uit a nd the C a lifornia

c ourts ha ve re c ogniz e d, “ C a lifornia la ws ‘ prohibit “not only a dve rtising whic h is fa lse , but a lso a d ve rtising whic h [,] although true , is
e ithe r a c tua lly

m isle a ding or whic h ha s a c a pa c ity , like lihood or te nde nc y to de c e ive or c onfuse the public .” ’ ” Moore v . Mars Pe tc areUS, Inc
. , 966 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th C ir. 2020) (e m

pha sis a nd a lte ra tion in origina

l) (quoting W

illiams v

. Ge rbe r Prods. C

o. , 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th C ir. 2008)); se e also K ask y v . N ik e , Inc
. , 45 P.3d 243, 250 (C a l. 2002) (sa m e ). W e none the le ss a ffirm the dism issa l of M y e rs’ s c la im s . C hoc olate
c onsum e rs m ight re a sona bly a ssum e from

the la ngua ge of the la

be l a nd its
e xc lusive pla c e m e nt on Dove Da rk C h oc olate produc ts tha t som e am ount of be ans from R a infore s t Allia

nc e C e rtifie d farm s we re use d in the produc tion of DoveDa rk
3C hoc olate . Howe ve r, M ars’ s Dove Da rk C hoc olate la

be l doe s not re pre se nt tha t R a infore st Allia

nc e C e rtifie d farm s a

void de fore sta

tion a nd the use of c hild la

bor. Nor doe s M y e rs a l le ge tha t R a i nfore st Allia

nc e C e rtifie d farm s do so. “ [A] signific ant portion” of re a sona ble c hoc olate c onsum e rs thus would not be le d to be lie ve tha

t Dove Da rk C h o c olate c onta ine d

c oc oa be an s produc e d

without c hild la bor a nd de fore sta

tion. Ebne r v . Fre

s h, Inc

. , 838 F.3d 958, 965 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Lav iev . Proc te r & Gamble C o. , 129 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 486, 495 (C a l. C t. App. 2003)). AFFIRM E D.

4