The appellate courts for the second and ninth circuits recently fortified the reasonable consumer standard, adding to the existing arsenal of defensive tools for corporations and law firms involved in food litigation cases. This series of decisions refines prior precedent, bolstering a court’s authority to properly dismiss cases where labeling claims would fail to plausibly mislead any rational consumer.
In one particularly noteworthy ruling, the Ninth Circuit states succinctly that “a reasonable consumer does not check [their] common sense at the door of the store”, effectively emphasising that legal defences for companies should rightfully include the presumption of a discerning, rational consumer base (Weiss v. Trader Joe’s, 838 F. App’x 302, 303 (9th Cir. 2021)).
The decision by these appellate courts is likely to have a bearing on how food-labeling lawsuits are defended in the future, adding a layer of protection for businesses against potentially frivolous or unreasonable claims.
Undoubtedly, this development is poised to invite a lively debate within the legal fraternity, stirring discussion on the balance between consumer protection rights and the defensive rights of businesses. Such discourse is essential in order to procure a fair and equitable legal terrain for all parties involved.