## Facts

- A consumer filed a putative class action against a food manufacturer over marketing and labeling of a butter-substitute spread used for cooking and baking.
- The product was marketed as “a nutritious alternative to butter,” “nutritionally better than butter,” and made with “a blend of nutritious oils.”
- The complaint alleged the product contained partially hydrogenated oil (artificial trans fat) and that trans fat has no nutritional value and poses health risks, including increased coronary heart disease risk.
- The plaintiff alleged the “nutritious oils” and comparative nutrition statements were misleading because they suggested healthful ingredients while omitting or downplaying the presence and risks of trans fat.
- The product labeling also included a “0g trans fat” statement per serving; the defendant asserted it was permitted by FDA rounding rules and thus federally compliant.
- The plaintiff brought claims under California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL on theories of misrepresentation, omission, and unlawful/unfair business practices.
- The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing, among other grounds, that portions of the claims were federally preempted and that fraud-based allegations were inadequately pled.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that “blend of nutritious oils” and “nutritionally better than butter” would mislead a reasonable consumer under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL.
2. Whether state-law claims were preempted to the extent they attacked FDA-regulated trans-fat labeling, including the “0g trans fat” declaration consistent with federal rounding rules.
3. Whether the complaint satisfied federal pleading standards, including Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud-sounding theories and allegations of reliance, causation, and economic injury.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- Claims targeting or effectively seeking to alter FDA-compliant “0g trans fat” labeling were limited or dismissed as preempted to the extent they would impose nonidentical state requirements.
- Claims based on voluntary marketing representations—such as “blend of nutritious oils” and “nutritionally better than butter”—were allowed to proceed because they were plausibly misleading to reasonable consumers at the pleading stage.
- The court treated the complaint’s purchase, reliance, and economic-injury allegations as sufficient to proceed past dismissal for the surviving theories.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL, a plaintiff states a claim by plausibly alleging that challenged statements or omissions are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer and are material to purchasing decisions.
- Federal food-labeling law can preempt state-law claims that would impose labeling obligations different from or in addition to FDA requirements for nutrient content disclosures, including FDA-authorized rounding conventions.
- State-law consumer-fraud claims may proceed when they challenge voluntary advertising or front-of-package representations not specifically required or authorized by federal labeling rules.
- For fraud-based consumer claims in federal court, Rule 9(b) requires sufficient detail identifying the specific statements, where they appeared, and why they were misleading; reliance and economic injury may be pled generally but must be plausible.

## Conclusion

The court permitted California consumer-protection claims to proceed insofar as they challenged allegedly deceptive “nutritious” and comparative health marketing tied to the presence of partially hydrogenated oil, while narrowing or dismissing theories that directly conflicted with FDA-compliant “0g trans fat” labeling due to federal preemption.


Rosen v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. C 09-02563 JW, 2010 WL 4807100 (N.D. Cal. 2010)