Digest

Bryan Cave Digest

Other Posts

Main Content

California’s Cage-Free Eggs Law Faces Supreme Court Challenge By Other States

Briefing is now complete in a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen states asking the United States Supreme Court to block a California law requiring any eggs sold within the state to come from chickens that have sufficient space to stretch out in their cages.

In the lawsuit, filed directly with the high court in December, Missouri, Iowa and 11 other states allege that “California has single-handedly increased the costs of egg production nationwide by hundreds of millions of dollars each year” due to its stringent regulations prohibiting confinement of egg-laying hens. The complaint contends that California’s requirements violate the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. The lawsuit also alleges that California’s regulations are preempted by the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA), a federal law requiring uniformity of labeling, standards, and other provisions allowing for free movement of eggs and egg products in interstate commerce. To support their claims, plaintiffs rely

Slack Fill Class Actions Continue to Flood The Courts

As we reported last year, slack fill litigation remains on the rise.  Plaintiffs continue to file consumer lawsuits – typically putative class actions – alleging food packaging is deceptive because it contains empty space, or nonfunctional slack fill, and disguises the amount of product in the package.

This roundup of recent decisions demonstrates that more plaintiffs are getting past early pleading challenges but likely will face significant barriers to success at summary judgment and class certification.

On February 16, 2018, a Missouri federal district court denied Nestlé’s motion to dismiss in Hawkins v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 4:17CV205 -HEA, 2018 WL 926130 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 16, 2018) challenging allegations that boxes of Raisinets candy contain 45% nonfunctional slack fill. In its motion to dismiss, Nestlé argued that a reasonable consumer would instantly realize the package was half-empty because of its “maraca-like rattle.” Id. at *5. The court rejected this

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.