We’re not gonna need a bigger bucket: lawsuit against KFC dismissed

Wurtzburger v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. 16-CV-08186, 2017
WL 6416296 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017)
Wurtzburger sued KFC for alleged violations of General
Business Law §§ 349, 350 and 21 C.F.R. § 100.100 by misleading consumers into
believing that KFC’s buckets of chicken were are filled to the rim. She bought,
inter alia, $20.00 “fill-up” bucket meal of chicken that was advertised as
consisting of “an eight piece bucket of chicken” and “stated that the meal
could feed your whole family,” but the ad displayed a bucket overflowing with
chicken, and her bucket was not overflowing.
Using an objective reasonable consumer standard, the court
found no plausible claim.  Wurtzburger
didn’t claim that she received less than eight pieces, which was the amount she
bargained for. The use of a larger than necessary bucket wouldn’t be materially
deceptive or misleading “to a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the
circumstances,” especially where the consumer “ordered, purchased, and received
the precise number of items requested.” Allegations that the phrase “the meal
could feed your whole family” was misleading were conclusory and without merit.
Wurtzburger’s allegation that she suffered personal injury/acid
reflux as a result of buying the chicken were also insufficient to establish
the injury sought to be addressed by the statutes.

21 C.F.R. § 100.100 covers branding on containers, and
provides that a food is misbranded “[i]f its container is so made, formed, or
filled as to be misleading.” A container is misleading if its contents cannot
be fully viewed and it contains “nonfunctional slack-fill,” which is further
defined by the regulation.  GBL § 349 can
encompass claims of excessive slack-fill, but it is a “complete defense that
the act or practice is … subject to and complies with the rules and
regulations of, and the statutes administered by, … any official … agency
of the United States as such rules, regulations or statutes are interpreted by
… the federal courts.” Alleging that the bucket Wurtzburger bought could hold
more chicken was insufficient to state a claim for non-functional slack-filling;
at a minimum, she needed to allege facts showing that KFC used slack-filling in
a manner outside of the enumerated permissible uses under the regulation.

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

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