## Facts

- Kellogg sold “whole grain” Cheez-It crackers in boxes prominently stating “WHOLE GRAIN” or “Made with WHOLE GRAIN” on the front panel.
- The front panel also included smaller-print statements such as “Made with 5g of WHOLE GRAIN per serving” or “Made with 8g of WHOLE GRAIN per serving.”
- The ingredient list stated that “enriched white flour” was the predominant grain ingredient, with “whole wheat flour” listed second or third.
- The Nutrition Facts panel listed a 29-gram serving size but did not disclose the relative amounts of whole grain versus refined grain.
- Consumers alleged the front-label statements conveyed that the crackers’ grain content was entirely or predominantly whole grain, and that they paid a price premium based on that understanding.
- Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under New York and California consumer-protection statutes; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), relying on the grams-per-serving disclosure and ingredient list.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that prominent “whole grain” and “made with whole grain” front-label statements would mislead a reasonable consumer into believing the crackers were predominantly whole grain.
2. Whether, as a matter of law at the pleading stage, small-print whole-grain-per-serving statements and an ingredient list necessarily defeat such claims.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held plaintiffs plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled to believe the product’s grain content was predominantly whole grain, even though enriched white flour was the primary grain ingredient.
- The court rejected the view that consumers must negate a misleading front-label impression by consulting fine-print side-panel disclosures.
- The court concluded that the grams-of-whole-grain-per-serving statements did not necessarily dispel the alleged implication that refined flour predominated.

## Legal Principles

- New York and California consumer-fraud labeling claims apply a “reasonable consumer” standard, asking whether members of the public are likely to be deceived.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and determine whether the claim is plausibly stated.
- A prominent front-of-package representation may be actionable where it plausibly conveys a misleading net impression about a key product attribute.
- Accurate ingredient lists or other less prominent disclosures generally do not, at the pleading stage, cure an affirmative misleading front-label representation or require dismissal as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that “whole grain” front-label claims can plausibly mislead reasonable consumers into believing whole grain predominates, and that fine-print quantity statements and ingredient lists do not automatically bar such claims on a motion to dismiss; the judgment was vacated and the case remanded.


Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018)