Opinion ID: 175339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Remand is Appropriate as to Aurora and the Retailers

Text: Except for QAI, at least one claim against each defendant in the CCC could survive preemption. Many of the claims against Aurora seek to hold it accountable for representing its products as organic when in fact the products were not. As discussed above, all of these claims are preempted by the OFPA. However, claims against Aurora for other conduct, particularly other representations it made in marketing its High Meadow brand milk, fall outside the scope of preemption. For example, the class plaintiffs allege Aurora engaged in various deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-1-105(1). Among other things, the CCPA defines deceptive trade practices to include advertis[ing] goods ... with the intent not to sell them as advertised and [f]ail[ing] to disclose material information concerning goods ... which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure ... was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction. Id. at (i), (u). The class plaintiffs allege Aurora engaged in deceptive advertising practices by, among other things, misrepresenting the manner in which its dairy cows were raised and fed, and suppressing or omitting material facts regarding the production of its `organic' milk or milk products, specifically that ... the dairy cows were not raised at pasture. This claim sufficiently states a cause of action at this stage of the proceedings. The district court's dismissal of defendant Aurora from the lawsuit must be reversed. The analysis of the deceptive advertising claims against Costco, Safeway, Target, and Wild Oats is identical to the analysis of the claims against Aurora. Each defendant is alleged to have misrepresented the manner in which the dairy cows were raised and fed in violation of various state deceptive trade practices laws and is alleged to have suppressed or omitted material facts regarding the production of its products. We hold at least one claim could have survived a motion to dismiss as to each of these defendants, again at this stage of the case. The class plaintiffs accuse Wal-Mart of the same activity as the other retailers. Wal-Mart allegedly advertises that its milk is antibiotic and hormone free. The class plaintiffs also allege Wal-Mart made knowing false statements on its packaging about the humane treatment of cows. There is evidence some of the organic cows at Aurora were put in herds with ordinary cows, potentially subjecting them to injections of antibiotics and hormones. Our review of the allegations against Wal-Mart confirms the allegations are sufficient to state at least one plausible claim for relief, at this stage.