“wasabi peas” can be made with horseradish without injuring consumers given widespread use

Yothers v. JFC Int’l, Inc., No. 20-cv-01657-RS, 2020 WL
5015262 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2020)

Defendants sell “wasabi peas,” which, “allegedly like 95–99%
of ‘wasabi’ products sold in North America, contains not Wasabia japonica but
Amoracia rusticana, more commonly known as horseradish.” Plaintiffs alleged
that they wouldn’t have bought the product if they’d known it didn’t contain
wasabi. Wasabi allegedly “is the most expensive crop in the world to grow
because it is very difficult to cultivate.” While fresh wasabi can cost as much
as $113 a pound, horseradish has a similar taste but costs only about $6 a
pound. Thus, plaintiffs alleged, “95–99% of the wasabi products sold in North
America substitute horseradish and green dye for authentic wasabi.” Defendants’
product is labeled as “wasabi coated green peas,” but the ingredients list
includes not wasabi but horseradish and green food coloring.

The court found that plaintiffs failed to show statutory
standing. They couldn’t show they paid a premium when the product they bought
was not, apparently, priced differently from other similar products. “Importantly,
plaintiffs have not alleged why they selected defendants’ product, as compared
to other products which are labelled and priced almost identically,” but
instead alleged that almost all other products on the market had the same
defect (and didn’t specify whether they knew that at the time of purchase).  “Unless that fact has recently become known to
them, ‘wasabi coated’ must have implied ‘horseradish coated’ to plaintiffs at
the time of purchase.” Plus, they alleged they reviewed the “labelling,
packaging, and marketing materials” before purchasing, and the package as a
whole clearly discloses that the product contains not wasabi but horseradish.
Williams v. Gerber Product Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that reasonable
consumers don’t have to “look beyond misleading representations on the front of
the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the
side of the box,” was inapposite because that was about a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
not a jurisdictional motion under Rule 12(b)(1). “The analysis in the present
case involves not what a ‘reasonable consumer’ would do, but what [plaintiffs]
actually did do.” Further, plaintiffs alleged that they wouldn’t have bought
this product “on the same terms” if they’d known the truth, but they didn’t
allege whether they would have bought another competing horseradish product
instead or a more expensive wasabi product. “Whether plaintiffs would have
spent the same amount of, more, or less money had they known about the
substitution determines whether they suffered an economic injury.”

from Blogger https://ift.tt/33erPv5

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