Consumer protection – Label – Coffee

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff on behalf of a putative class has brought suit over the alleged mislabeling of hazelnut cream coffee, the complaint should be dismissed because of insufficient detail regarding the circumstances of the plaintiff’s purchase.

“Plaintiff Kathy Dumont purchased a package of New England Coffee Company’s Hazelnut Crème Coffee featuring a front label that ‘prominently described the coffee as Hazelnut Cream.’ … The product does not include hazelnut; instead, as indicated on the back label of the package, it is ‘Naturally and Artificially Flavored.’ … According to her complaint, plaintiff would not have bought the coffee or would have paid less for it had she known the product did not include hazelnuts. … Individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class of similar consumers, plaintiff asserts three claims based upon this ‘[i]nnacurate labeling’: violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, section2 (Count 1); violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, section91 (Count 2); and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment (Count III). …

“Defendants Reily Foods Company and New England Coffee Company have moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion is allowed. To adequately state her claims, plaintiff must set forth sufficiently particularized facts permitting at least the reasonable inference that defendants’ coffee packaging ‘has the capacity to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act differently from the way they otherwise would have acted (i.e. to entice a reasonable consumer to purchase the product).’ … Beyond the allegation that ‘Plaintiff purchased NECC’s Hazelnut Crème Coffee’ and the conclusory assertion that she ‘reasonably believed that the coffee contained … hazelnut,’ the complaint offers insufficient detail regarding the circumstances of plaintiff’s purchase. … Without more, her complaint fails to pass muster under the relevant pleading standard. …”

Dumont v. Reily Foods Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-466-18) (2 pages) (Zobel, Sr. D.J.) (Civil Action No. 18-10907-RWZ) (Sept. 24, 2018).

Click here for the full-text opinion.