## Facts

- Consumers brought putative class claims alleging Wesson cooking oils were deceptively labeled “100% Natural” despite being derived from genetically engineered crops.
- Plaintiffs alleged the label caused them to pay a price premium over the product’s true value.
- Plaintiffs retained Colin B. Weir to propose a classwide damages approach intended to measure the price premium attributable to the “100% Natural” claim.
- Weir proposed using hedonic regression (market data modeling) and conjoint analysis (survey-based valuation) to isolate the value consumers and the market placed on the “100% Natural” attribute.
- Conagra moved to exclude Weir under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, arguing he lacked sufficient expertise in hedonic regression and conjoint analysis and that his planned work was speculative because it was not yet fully implemented with case-specific data.

## Issues

1. Whether Weir was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to offer expert opinions using hedonic regression and conjoint analysis to measure alleged price-premium damages.
2. Whether Weir’s proposed price-premium methodology was sufficiently reliable under Daubert despite not being fully executed at the time of the motion.
3. Whether Weir’s proposed model fit plaintiffs’ theory of liability by measuring damages attributable to the alleged “100% Natural” misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The court denied Conagra’s motion to exclude Weir’s testimony.
- The court found Weir sufficiently qualified based on education, training, and applied professional experience in statistical and economic analysis.
- The court held that hedonic regression and conjoint analysis are recognized methods for valuing product attributes and were reliable for Rule 702 purposes as proposed.
- The court concluded that objections concerning variable selection, survey design, data inputs, and the absence of completed analyses went to weight and could be tested through cross-examination and competing expert evidence.
- The court determined Weir’s price-premium approach was relevant because it aimed to quantify the value attributable to the challenged “100% Natural” labeling claim.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 702 permits expert qualification through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; lack of narrow credentials or publication history is not automatically disqualifying.
- Under Daubert, the admissibility focus is on the reliability of principles and methods, not whether an expert has completed every application step or produced final results at the time of the challenge.
- Recognized economic and survey-based techniques (including hedonic regression and conjoint analysis) may be admissible to estimate a price premium tied to an alleged misrepresentation.
- Disputes about execution details, consumer heterogeneity, and the ultimate accuracy of a damages model generally concern weight rather than admissibility when the methodology is testable and connected to the damages theory.
- Courts should avoid turning Daubert review into a merits trial; gatekeeping excludes unreliable methods, not imperfect or contested implementations.

## Conclusion

The court allowed plaintiffs’ damages expert to testify, holding that his proposed hedonic regression and conjoint analysis framework was sufficiently qualified, reliable, and relevant under Rule 702 and Daubert to support a classwide price-premium damages theory based on the “100% Natural” labeling claim.


In re Conagra Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. Cal. 2014)