Mott’s Can’t Escape ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Mott’s LLP will face a class action lawsuit over the alleged mislabeling of its apple products as “no sugar added” after a California federal judge rejected Mott’s motion to dismiss the case, finding the plaintiffs have shown so far that a reasonable consumer could be deceived.

The company has tried twice to dismiss the Mott’s class action lawsuit. The last motion for dismissal yielded the removal of claims regarding Mott’s “no sugar added” applesauce, as well as claims about both the applesauce and apple juice under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In the last ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston gave lead plaintiff Mohammed Rahman a chance to revise his statements explaining why reasonable consumers would be likely to draw product comparison conclusions from the labeling at issue, and to describe what his complaint called “comparable products.”

Rahman filed the Mott’s class action lawsuit, claiming that the use of the statement “no sugar added” on Mott’s 100% Apple Juice does not comply with applicable Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules, and that this violates California’s Sherman Law and California Health and Safety Code. He said in his filing that he would not have purchased as much of the product if it did not have the “no sugar added” label.

In the second hearing, Judge Illston was also considering Mott’s claim that the “Court should dismiss the action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the SAC raises labeling claims that fall squarely within the scope of ongoing FDA rulemaking proceedings.” But, says Judge Illston, “the ongoing FDA rulemaking at issue is unrelated to the present claims,” as the FDA rules are regarding the nutrition facts labeling, whereas the Mott’s class action lawsuit is considering the claims made on the front label, and denied the motion.

In his second filing, Rahman amended the Mott’s class action lawsuit to be more specific about his claim that Mott’s “‘No Sugar Added labeling is likely to mislead the consuming public into believing that Mott’s 100% Apple Juice is healthier and contains less sugar than comparable products” by alleging that, “while shopping, he observed the that the label of one of Mott’s competitor apple juices, Treetop, did not contain a ‘No Sugar Added’ claim.”

Judge Illston found his argument convincing, denying the motion to dismiss. “These allegations are sufficient to explain ‘how’ the labeling at  issue is misleading to a reasonable consumer,” she wrote. Mott’s had also attempted to dismiss the case on the basis that Rahman failed to adequately state his injuries and damages; Illston found his assertion that he would have purchased less of the product had it not been labeled “No Sugar Added” sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss on these grounds. She also declined to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, David L Cheng, Sue J Kim, Sharon G. Yaacobi and Arvin Ratanavongse of Capstone Law APC.

The Mott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Lawsuit is Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, Case No. 3:13-cv-03482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Dec. 3, 2014, a federal judge denied certification for the Mott’s “no sugar added” class action lawsuit based on concerns regarding the calculation of damages.