Gerber Baby Food
February 2018: A federal judge denied class certification concluding that the named plaintiff did not have standing to pursue injunctive relief and failed to satisfy one of the requirements to recover monetary damages.
July 2017: Gerber’s petition for rehearing was granted in part, the appellate court’s April 2017 decision was withdrawn, and a new decision was filed. In the new decision, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment as to claims that labels were deceptive and reversed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment as to claims that labels were unlawful, in violation of California law. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded the issue for further consideration. To read the full decision, click here.
May 2017: Gerber filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing of the appellate court’s April 2017 decision.
April 2017: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s summary judgment and class certification decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Case No. 15-15174, 9th Cir.)
January 2015: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding several District Court orders, including the June 2014 certification decision and the December 2014 summary judgment decision.
December 2014: A federal judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment concluding that the plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to show that Gerber’s nutrient-content and sugar-related claims were likely to mislead reasonable consumers.
June 2014: A federal judge refused to certify the class in a lawsuit alleging that Gerber misleadingly and unlawfully labels products, including its Nature Select 2nd Foods Fruit, Graduates Lil’ Crunchies, Graduates for Toddlers Animal Crackers, Nature Select 2nd Foods Vegetables, Organic SmartNourish 2nd Foods, and Singles Grain Cereals. According to the complaint (which was originally filed in 2012), the nutrient content claims on the products’ labels are misleading and prohibited on food products intended to be consumed by children under two because the nutritional needs of adults and children under two are different. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the company labels products as containing “No Added Sugar” without adequately disclosing that the product is not low in calories, as required by state law. The judge did not certify the class because the named plaintiff failed to propose a realistic way to identify class members. (Bruton et al v. Gerber Products Company, Case No. 12-cv-02412, N. D. CA.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits against Gerber and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.