Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

In Food Labeling Dispute, California Federal Court Refuses to Ignore Back Panel Disclosures Absent Explicit Alleged Misrepresentation on Front Panel

By Class Actions Team on January 31, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Last week, a California district court dismissed a putative class action brought by serial filer Spencer Sheehan against Icelandic Provisions, Inc., the maker of an eponymous Skyr (Icelandic-style yogurt) product.  The plaintiff, bringing a case captioned Steinberg v. Icelandic Provisions, Inc., No. 21-cv-5568 (N.D. Cal.), alleged that Icelandic Provisions misleads consumers into believing that its product is made in Iceland when it is actually made in New York.  She pointed to the front label featuring the “Icelandic Provisions” brand name, the words “Traditional Icelandic Skyr” at the top, and a cartoon countryside with a snow-covered backdrop.

Icelandic Provisions moved to dismiss, arguing that these packaging elements relate to the characteristics of the product rather than indicating where the product is made, and pointing to a back-label explicit disclosure that the product is “Proudly made in Batavia, NY.”  In response, the plaintiff urged the court to ignore this statement because it appeared only on the back label.  Icelandic Provisions argued that back-label statements are properly considered, particularly given the absence of any actual misrepresentation on the front label.

The Steinberg court agreed with Icelandic Provisions.  Rejecting the plaintiff’s effort to rely upon Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018), the court observed that “courts in the Second Circuit have declined to extend Mantikas’s holding to situations where the front label ‘makes no explicit [false] statements’ or where the front label makes ‘ambiguous’ statements.”  Steinberg therefore was not governed by Mantikas: “[i]n this case, there are no explicit statements on the Product’s front label about the place of manufacture, and therefore a reasonable consumer can be expected to consult the back label.”  The court accordingly dismissed the mislabeling claims.

This decision reinforces the common sense principle that a “reasonable” consumer should not be able to allege deception while turning a blind eye to disclosures that would disabuse him or her of their mistaken belief.  Covington represented Icelandic Provisions in this case.

  • Posted in:
    Food, Drug & Agriculture
  • Blog:
    Inside Class Actions
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo