A consumer’s California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) class action based on allegations that General Mills falsely claimed its granola and chewy-trail-mix bars were “100% Natural” was not preempted by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations or the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), according to the federal district court in Sand Diego. However, the consumer failed to state a claim based on the heightened pleading standard for claims sounding in fraud.

The consumer filed the class action against General Mills, which marketed, advertised, and sold granola bar products and chewy-trail-mix bar products. The products were named “Natural Valley” and were advertised as “100% Natural,” even though the products contained a number of non-natural ingredients.

The consumer’s claims were not preempted by the FDCA or FDA regulations because Congress did not intend to preempt state consumer protection statutes in claims concerning food labeling. A federal law impliedly preempts a state law where the conduct falls into a field that Congress intended the federal government to occupy exclusively. Although the FDA has promulgated several food-labeling requirements, Congress has specifically indicated that it did not intend to fully occupy the field of food and beverage nutritional labeling. Preemption also occurs where a state law conflicts with a federal law and makes compliance with the federal statute impossible. Because the FDA deferred taking regulatory action with respect to the term “natural,” the state law claims at issue were not an obstacle to accomplishing Congress’s objectives in regulating labels.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. The consumer failed to meet the pleading standard because the factual allegations were based on conclusory and speculative factual content. The allegations needed to contain more than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, according to the court.

 (The above feature is selected from the newsletter published monthly along with full text documents and other materials provided to subscribers of the State Unfair Trade Practices Law.)