Court Upholds Dismissal of Trans Fat Labeling Lawsuit Against J&J

TRENTON, N.J.A panel of three federal appeals judges recently upheld the dismissal of a class-action complaint that alleged deceptive labeling of butter/margarine substitutes under New Jersey law.

In affirming the dismissal of the case against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled plaintiff's "theories of liability are expressly preempted" by federal law, namely the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

The named plaintiff, Thomas Young, alleged labeling on two productsBenecol Regular Spread and Benecol Light Spreadwas deceptive, and his beef had to do with J&J labeling Benecol as containing "NO TRANS FAT" and stating that it was "Proven to Reduce Cholesterol."

Although the product contained some trans fat otherwise known as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allow for a label to state that a product contains zero grams of the substance per serving if there is less than 0.5 grams of trans fat. Even Young acknowledged that fact, the 3rd Circuit observed, but he argued the representation "NO TRANS FAT" was not expressly permitted.

In a May 9 written decision, Circuit Judge Kent Jordan stated federal regulations that were made under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) authorized J&J's trans fat claims, consequently preempting Young's causes of action under state law. That is because the NLEA expressly preempts state-imposed, nutrition-labeling requirements that are not identical to those set forth under the federal law, the 3rd Circuit observed.

The court's conclusions that the trans fat claims were authorized under federal regulations are consistent with at least three other court decisions, including a 9th Circuit case in 2010, Jordan pointed out.

The 3rd Circuit also held FDA regulations authorized the cholesterol claims, rejecting plaintiff's argument that the claims were false and misleading.

The decision was classified as "not precedential", meaning it is not binding on lower courts.

In his complaint before the trial court, Young had alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New York General Business Law, breaches of express warranties and of the implied covenant of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. But the 3rd Circuit did not address Young's claims based on warranties and unjust enrichment.