Naked Juice class action update: settlement for $ 9 million.

We have previously reported on the , which originated based on claims that it falsely advertised some of its juice and smoothie products as “all natural” and non genetically modified.

was first targeted in five separate putative in 2011 that were consolidated in the Central District of California the following year. After they lodged a consolidated complaint in March 2012, the court trimmed the suit’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims and allegations over the products’ “100% juice” and “from concentrate” representations but refused to dismiss the case completely.

In the June 2012 consolidated that followed, the consumer plaintiffs alleged that the company deceptively advertised some of its products — including its Acai Machine, Protein Zone and Mango Veggie juices — by using the all natural and non-GMO claims on their labels even though the products consisted of processed and synthetic ingredients as well as ingredients derived from genetically modified crops.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tina and Robert Ahdoot of Ahdoot & PC, Rosemary M. Rivas of LLP and Christopher of Lyon and Ottoson. is represented by Daniel W. Nelson, Andrew S. Tulumello, Christopher , Dhananjay S. Manthripragada and Jenna Musselman Yott of .

The case is Natalie Pappas v. Co. of Glendora Inc. et al., case number 2:11-cv-08276, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Co. of Glendora Inc. has agreed to shell out $9 million as a aiming to resolve those claims, and calls for a class of all people and entities in the U.S. who bought one or more of the Naked at issue from Sept. 27, 2007, through the date the class notice goes out. to settle a consolidated putative class action in California alleging that it falsely advertised some of its juice and smoothie products as “all natural” and non-genetically modified, court documents filed Tuesday said.

Under the deal the consumer plaintiffs lodged with the federal court, will continue to deny the allegations that its product labels were misleading or false but agreed shell out $9 million for a settlement fund and to redesign the labels to either eliminate or modify the representations at issue.

The company will also set up a verification program for an independent tester to confirm the accuracy of its labels’ “non-GMO” claim as well as a database to electronically track and verify product ingredients for the line, according to the parties’ stipulation. The deal allows for the plaintiffs’ counsel to ask the court for attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to $3.12 million, to be paid from the settlement fund.

“The proposed settlement provides significant consideration for class members and also benefits the public at large,” the plaintiffs in the five consolidated lawsuits told the court in their motion for preliminary approval of the deal.

said in its own court filing Wednesday that the deal was “fair, reasonable and adequate.”

“While denies all of plaintiffs’ claims in these consolidated actions, denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or damage of any kind to plaintiffs and the putative class, and vigorously disputes that it has engaged in any actionable conduct, it has agreed to resolve the cases to avoid the expenses, uncertainties, delays and other risks inherent in continued litigation,” the company told the court.

Law 360

Be Sociable, Share!


    Writers for the Food Exposed blog

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *