Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Missouri Court denies Motion to Dismiss Over “Nothing Artificial” Claims

By Jonathan Miles on August 9, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Like several California courts before it, a recent Missouri federal court case reminds food manufacturers that they must carefully monitor the marketing claims made on the front of their products’ labeling packages regardless of whether an ingredient list is included on the packaging.

In Thornton v. Pinnacle Food Groups LLC, the Court denied a motion to dismiss putative class action claims where the plaintiff alleged that a label describing a manufacturer’s muffin mix contained false and misleading statements about the product’s ingredients. The plaintiff alleged that she purchased Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry Streusel Premium Muffin Mix labeled as containing “Nothing Artificial”, and that the Muffin Mix contained monocalcium phosphate and xanthum gum, which were artificial, synthetic substances. Thus, the plaintiff claimed, the “Nothing Artificial” statement was false, deceptive, and misleading.

In seeking dismissal of the suit, Pinnacle argued that the plaintiff could not have been deceived by the purportedly misleading statement because it contained an ingredient list disclosing the product’s ingredients. The Court rejected the “ingredient list” defense, finding it plausible that a consumer could rely on the “Nothing Artificial” representation without looking at the product’s ingredients list. In the same vein, the Court also found the plaintiff’s allegations of harm sufficient where she alleged that the product she purchased had less value then it would have had without the “artificial” ingredients. Finally, the Court also held that the plaintiff’s fraud claims satisfied Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements for fraud because it identified the who, what, where, when, and how of the purported fraud.

Going forward, the plaintiff will need to obtain class certification, a threshold that has tripped up most plaintiffs in these types of cases. However, this case serves as an example that food manufacturers must pay close attention to the statements made on the front of their packaging, even where a product’s ingredients are fully disclosed on the back of the packaging.

Photo of Jonathan Miles Jonathan Miles

Jonathan Miles is an associate in the firm’s Litigation group.  He practices in the full range of complex commercial litigation, and his experience includes litigating claims for breach of contract, strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, false advertising, unfair competition and violations…

Jonathan Miles is an associate in the firm’s Litigation group.  He practices in the full range of complex commercial litigation, and his experience includes litigating claims for breach of contract, strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, false advertising, unfair competition and violations of California’s Proposition 65.  He has worked on several class actions and has represented companies in governmental enforcement actions.  Jonathan has represented companies in many different industries, including the automotive, gasoline distribution, food, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, social networking, data storage, real estate and insurance industries, in both state and federal court.

Read more about Jonathan MilesEmailJonathan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Food, Drug & Agriculture, Personal Injury
  • Blog:
    Food Liability Law
  • Organization:
    Stoel Rives LLP

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo