Opinion ID: 1243130
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Decision to Grant the Motion to Dismiss

Text: The district court granted Gerber's motion to dismiss all of Appellants' claims. On Appellants' statutory claims (under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act), the district court found that the Snacks' packaging was not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer as a matter of law. Williams v. Gerber Products Co., 439 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1117 (S.D.Cal.2006). It similarly dismissed the fraud and warranty claims, holding that the challenged statements and images, viewed in context, are truthful or constitute non-actionable puffery. Id. at 1118. California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Cal. Bus. and Prof.Code § 17200. The false advertising law prohibits any unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Cal. Bus. and Prof.Code § 17500. `[A]ny violation of the false advertising law ... necessarily violates' the DUCL. Kasky v. Nike, Inc. 27 Cal.4th 939, 950, 119 Cal. Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243 (2002) (quoting Comm. on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal.3d 197, 210, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 (1983)). California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Cal. Civ.Code § 1770. Appellants' claims under these California statutes are governed by the reasonable consumer test. Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir.1995) ([T]he false or misleading advertising and unfair business practices claim must be evaluated from the vantage of a reasonable consumer. (citation omitted)); Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 506-07, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (Cal.App. 2003) ([U]nless the advertisement targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.). Under the reasonable consumer standard, Appellants must show that `members of the public are likely to be deceived.' Freeman, 68 F.3d at 289 (quoting Bank of West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1267, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (1992)). The California Supreme Court has recognized that these laws prohibit `not only advertising which is false, but also advertising which[,] although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.' Kasky, 27 Cal.4th at 951, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243 (quoting Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal.3d 609, 626, 217 Cal.Rptr. 423, 704 P.2d 183 (1985)). A district court should grant a motion to dismiss if plaintiffs have not pled enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 1965. See also 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 ([T]he motion [to dismiss] is not a procedure for resolving a contest between the parties about the facts or the substantive merits of the plaintiff's case.). Here, the district court based its decision to grant the motion to dismiss solely on its own review of an example of the packaging. It is true that the primary evidence in a false advertising case is the advertising itself. Brockey v. Moore, 107 Cal.App.4th 86, 100, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 (Cal.App.2003). California courts, however, have recognized that whether a business practice is deceptive will usually be a question of fact not appropriate for decision on demurrer. See e.g., Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 134-35, 61 Cal. Rptr.3d 221 (2007) (Whether a practice is deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair is generally a question of fact which requires `consideration and weighing of evidence from both sides' and which usually cannot be made on demurrer. (quoting McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1472, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 227 (Cal.App. 2006))); Committee on Children's Television, 35 Cal.3d at 197, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660 (finding demurrer inappropriate in case where parents alleged deceptive advertising of sugar cereals). Decisions granting motions to dismiss claims under the Unfair Competition Law have occasionally been upheld. For instance, in Freeman v. Time Inc., 68 F.3d at 285, we upheld the dismissal of a challenge to a mailer that suggested the plaintiff had won a million dollar sweepstakes. There, we relied on the fact that the mailer explicitly stated multiple times that the plaintiff would only win the prize if he had the winning sweepstakes number. Thus, it was not necessary to evaluate additional evidence regarding whether the advertising was deceptive, since the advertisement itself made it impossible for the plaintiff to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be deceived. The facts of this case, on the other hand, do not amount to the rare situation in which granting a motion to dismiss is appropriate. Here, there are a number of features of the packaging Gerber used for its Fruit Juice Snacks product which could likely deceive a reasonable consumer. The product is called fruit juice snacks and the packaging pictures a number of different fruits, potentially suggesting (falsely) that those fruits or their juices are contained in the product. Further, the statement that Fruit Juice Snacks was made with fruit juice and other all natural ingredients could easily be interpreted by consumers as a claim that all the ingredients in the product were natural, which appears to be false. And finally, the claim that Snacks is just one of a variety of nutritious Gerber Graduates foods and juices that have been specifically designed to help toddlers grow up strong and healthy adds to the potential deception. [3] The district court suggests that no reasonable consumer upon review of the package as a whole would conclude that Snacks contains juice from the actual and fruit-like substances displayed on the packaging particularly where the ingredients are specifically identified. Williams, 439 F.Supp.2d at 1116. We disagree with the district court that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box. The ingredient list on the side of the box appears to comply with FDA regulations and certainly serves some purpose. We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception. Instead, reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging. We reject Gerber's assertion that the district court concluded as an alternate holding that the product complied with FDA guidelines. The district court did note that it believed that the FDA authorizes the way in which Gerber labels snacks. Williams, 439 F.Supp.2d at 1112. Contrary to Gerber's assertion, however, this was not an alternate holding but simply support for the conclusion that the product was not deceptive. Further, Gerber makes no argument as to how compliance with certain FDA regulations would automatically shield it from liability under these California statutes or tort claims. [4] In conclusion, we find that, given the opportunity, Appellants have stated a claim and could plausibly prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the Snacks packaging. As such, the district court erred in concluding, without considering any evidence beyond the packaging itself, that Appellants' complaint failed to state a viable claim. [5]