In this week’s roundup of notable rulings, we glance over key court decisions that have the potential to shape legal practices within the food and consumer packaged goods terrain, with a spotlight on Igor Zapadinsky v. Blue Diamond Growers.
In the case of Igor Zapadinsky v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 2:23-cv-00231-JPS (August 7, 2023), the Eastern District of Wisconsin court dismissed a putative class action case against almond manufacturer, Blue Diamond Growers. The plaintiffs alleged that Blue Diamond Growers misled consumers when their product was described as having a “smokehouse” flavor, while it was flavored with artificial liquid smoke as opposed to being traditionally smoked.
Indeed, this ruling could potentially serve as a gateway for companies to widen their product descriptions in the food sector, knowing that terms that speak to a method of food preparation may not necessarily pose a peril, as long as the flavors truly represent the description. While we follow continuing judicial interpretations of issues on consumer deception, let’s examine closer some of the implications from this ruling.
- The court’s decision to dismiss the claim based on the reasoning that consumers would not be misled by the term “smokehouse”, provides an interesting new perspective on what manufacturers can consider when crafting their product descriptions. The benchmark now, as it seems, may not be process-based, but outcome-based, as long as it does not mislead consumers.
- Secondly, by shedding light on the industry standard, which is to use artificial smoke flavoring in foods, and juxtaposing it with the dismissal of the allegation, the court essentially fortified the position of many food manufacturers using similar flavoring techniques. This verdict now seemingly offers a protective umbrella to those food companies employing artificial flavors that accurately replicate traditional methods.
In conclusion, as corporations and law firms build upon established rulings such as this, we anticipate an interesting landscape ahead for food legislation and court decisions alike.