Another “omissions about slave labor” case fails in Cal.

Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 15-cv-03783, 2017 WL
345994 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017)
Sud brought the usual California claims based on allegations
that Costco sold prawns for which the supply
chain was tainted by slavery, human trafficking, and other illegal labor
practices. Sud alleged that the defendants were aware that the feed for the
prawns comes from trash fish caught on boats that use slave labor or other
illegal labor practices, including human trafficking. Costco publicly states on
its website that it has a “supplier Code of Conduct which prohibits human
rights abuses in our supply chain,” but plaintiffs alleged that this was
misleading given these facts, and that Costco omitted to tell consumers these important
facts.  
To show that an omission was, as required by California law,
a substantial factor in a plaintiff’s decision, she must show awareness and a
change in behavior. Change in behavior may be presumed if the omitted
information is material, “but a plaintiff must still be able to show she would
have been aware of the information if it had been disclosed.”  Here, plaintiffs alleged that Costco’s
packaging stated only that the prawns were a product of a given country, rather
than including information about labor abuses in the supply chain, creating an
actionable omission.  The plaintiffs
sufficiently pled reliance on the packaging, though not on Costco’s “Disclosure
Regarding Human Trafficking and Anti-Slavery” on its website.
Plaintiffs alleged that Costco had a duty to accurately
disclose to consumers that slavery, forced labor and human trafficking have
been tainting and continue to taint Costco’s supply chain for farmed
prawns.  For a UCL or CLRA claim, “to be
actionable the omission must be contrary to a representation actually made by
the defendant, or an omission of a fact that the defendant was obliged to disclose.”
Disclosure obligations include those relating to safety risks, but not all
material facts, including supply chain practices.  Given public information available about labor
conditions in the fishing industry in Thailand and Southeast, Costco also lacked
the superior/exclusive knowledge that might have generated a duty to disclose;
nor did plaintiffs properly allege partial representations plus active
concealment, which also could have sufficed.
The unfair/unlawful UCL claims also failed.  Plaintiffs alleged that Costco’s conduct “in
sourcing and selling farmed prawns actively contributes to the use of slave
labor in violation of bans on such human trafficking enacted by the U.S.,
California and by international conventions, including but not limited to the
Tariff Act of 1930 [,] … [t]he Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, the UN
Declaration on Human Rights, and California Penal Code § 236, § 237, et seq.,”
and the Supply Chains Act. The Supply Chains Act didn’t clearly speak to
product labels, and, to the extent plaintiffs challenged the website disclosure’s
adequacy, they lacked standing.  Nor did
they explain how the allegations in the complaint supported alleged violations
of the other laws.
On unfairness, assuming that the standard is whether the
alleged practice “is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious to consumers,” and weighing “the utility of the
defendant’s conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim,” the
harm alleged by the plaintiffs (buying a product they wouldn’t otherwise have
bought) didn’t state a claim.  Consumers
have access to information about supply chains, including Costco’s website
statement, so the absence of such information on the packaging is not “substantially
injurious to consumers” or necessarily immoral.  Likewise, plaintiffs didn’t identify a
particular policy or other statutory or regulatory provision that demonstrate “it
is ‘unfair’ within the meaning of the UCL for [a] manufacturer to fail to
disclose” such violations on its product packaging.

Pure omissions, when the defendant didn’t make any statement
at all about a subject, aren’t covered by the FAL, so those claims also failed. 

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2jmRJc3

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s