storage container promise of “optimal environment” to keep produce fresh isn’t puffery

Zearfoss v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 2019 WL 2902495, No. 18-cv-06392-AB
(ASx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2019)
Rubbermaid sells a line of food storage containers called
FreshWorks Produce Saver Products, advertising on the outside packaging in
large bold print “Keeps Produce Fresh Up to 80% LONGER.*” The container
displays an assortment of produce including leafy green vegetables,
strawberries, and blueberries. The fine print disclaimer in “faint and small
typeface” on the bottom center of the label says, “Based on strawberries in
FreshWorksTM containers vs. store packaging.” The package also says: “FreshVentTM
patented membrane naturally regulates the flow of O2 and CO2 to create the
optimal environment so your produce stays farm fresh.” Some products also compare
moldy and rotten-looking strawberries, purportedly contained in store-brand
packaging, with pristine fresh-looking strawberries, purportedly stored in
Rubbermaid containers, for 21 days.

From ad on YouTube

Plaintiffs alleged that, in fact, the products are no better
than store packaging.  Rubbermaid’s “up
to 80%” claim was allegedly based on its undisclosed standard that, when up to
49% of the strawberries in a container are moldy, spotted, or indented, they
are no longer fresh. NAD allegedly raised substantial questions about Rubbermaid’s
methodology and concerns over whether consumers would agree that 49% rotten was
the standard.  A Consumer Reports test
also allegedly found that the Rubbermaid products performed worse than store
packaging and another product at keeping raspberries fresh. In addition, despite
Rubbermaid’s admission that “there is no single environment that will be the
perfect storage environment for all types of produce[,]” it allegedly continued
to make the optimal environment claim.  Plaintiffs
brought assorted consumer protection claims; this is an evaluation of the
amended complaint.
In dismissing the original complaint, the court expressed
concern with the absence of any metric to measure freshness. This time,
plaintiffs pled that they determined freshness by observing the color,
appearance, texture, and smell of the produce, that they promptly transferred
produce from store containers to the products, and that the products performed
on par with store packaging. Rubbermaid said that wasn’t enough; the court
thought it was.  “[T]he external
appearance of the produce, its smell, and its edibility” was a reasonable
measure of freshness, especially given that Rubbermaid uses a similar metric in
its own ads, which depict a shriveling, molding, and dulling strawberry next to
a robust, firm, and bright red strawberry. “Above the comparison is the telling
sentence: ‘Keeps produce fresh up to 80% longer* – a difference you can see.’” Using
not only the same visual cues Rubbermaid relied on but also olfactory cues was
sufficient.
Rubbermaid argued that “up to” couldn’t be deceptive to a reasonable
consumer, since any reasonable consumer would be on notice that their results
may fall short of the maximum performance. But in Maloney v. Verizon Internet
Servs., Inc., No. CV 08-1885-SGL (AGRx), 2009 WL 8129871 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4,
2009), which accepted a similar argument about ads for internet speed “up to 3
Mbps,” defendants’ TOS explained that bandwidth would vary depending on listed
customer-specific factors, which Rubbermaid’s ads didn’t.  “Plaintiffs do not allege that they expected
each item of produce to stay fresh 80% longer on each use of the Products,
rather Plaintiffs allege that it was reasonable for them to expect some produce
on some occasions would remain fresh longer than they would have in the store
packaging. Plaintiffs allege this was not the case.”  That was reasonable.
Rubbermaid argued that “optimal environment” was puffery. The
court disagreed. The packages claimed that a “[p]atented membrane” regulates
the flow of O2 and CO2 “to create the optimal environment so [consumers’] produce
stays farm fresh.” Though courts have rejected language similar to “optimal” as
mere puffery, reasonable consumers could plausibly receive a specific message
here, given the reference to the use of a scientific method “to determine how
best to ‘naturally regulate’ the flow of natural gasses for produce.”  [It does indeed seem like the kind of thing
that people involved in perishable food storage/sales would study and try to control,
rather than leaving it up to chance; since it seems reasonable to laypeople
that this situation could be scientifically studied, a claim of success shouldn’t
be mere puffery.]  However, the “up to
80% longer” and “optimal environment” claims couldn’t support breach of
warranty claims; they didn’t have enough of a “concrete, discernable meaning”
and there was no allegation that the products were bought for a particular
purpose more specific than produce storage.
In addition, Rubbermaid had no independent obligation to
disclose its 49% rotten testing standard to the consuming public.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2ZJ773F

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s