Well, a judge has refused to certify an injunctive class based on “natural” deception where the company changed its practices in response to a CLRA notice letter, prior to the lawsuit.
Most courts will hold that this moots an injunctive relief claim (incorrectly, in my opinion, because I don’t trust food companies not to return to a deceptive practice).
In this case, the court refused to certify an injunctive class based mostly on the “won’t get fooled again” theory—that the class rep certainly knows better than to buy something that she knows is fraudulent, and thus has lost Article III standing.
This creates a situation where anyone smart enough to be a class rep is deemed to be too smart to get fooled again.
Courts are split between those judges take this approach and those that—correctly—note that if this were the case, then no deceptive labeling class action could be brought.
Of course, industry lawyers use opinions like this to decry all food cases as “baseless” (as one does in a story reporting on this decision).
Fact is, they are not baseless, even when unsuccessful.
This company, and far too many others, cheat consumers by promising them a “natural” product that isn’t, in this case because it had GMO ingredients.
