Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation
Protecting your brand, reducing your risk.
Should a dispute proceed to trial, companies require sophisticated representation, from serving as coordinating defense counsel in complex nationwide class actions and mass torts to arguing individual cases.
For over a decade, our team at Perkins Coie has defended the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry in challenges to companies’ labeling, marketing, and advertising. Over that time, we have developed a deep understanding of the legal and regulatory environment, strategies of the plaintiffs’ bar, and—most importantly—the business objectives of our clients in these essential industries. That experience informs our risk mitigation counsel to clients and helps us implement effective litigation strategies if claims are filed.
The biggest names in food and and CPG, such as General Mills, Amazon, Tyson Foods, Keurig Dr. Pepper, and Costco, trust us to protect their valuable brands. We craft and deploy decisive measures that reduce liability and, when feasible, shut down litigation early and cost-effectively.
Outside of litigation and dispute resolution, our team supports clients with regulatory compliance, including product labeling and advertising, ESG and packaging, and FDA, USDA, and FTC regulatory compliance.
Our team, recognized by Chambers USA in the area of Food & Beverage, often leads the conversation in this evolving area of law and is regularly featured in national media. We keep our clients up to date on rising trends through daily litigation alerts, our Food & CPG Litigation Blog, quarterly trend reports, and annual Food & CPG Litigation Year in Review.
How we help clients
- Complex consumer class-action defense
- Mass tort, toxic tort, and environmental litigation
- Product labeling and advertising advice
- Proposition 65 defense
- Pre-litigation dispute resolution
- ESG and packaging compliance
- FDA, USDA, and FTC regulatory compliance
We frequently represent
- Food and beverage manufacturers, distributors, and retailers
- Beauty and personal care brands
- Dietary supplement and wellness companies
- Cannabis and hemp-derived cannabinoid products
Our Team
Areas of Focus
Consumer Class Actions & Dispute Resolution
Since 2008, our team has assisted with approximately 1,000 class action cases and often leads the industry conversation in this evolving area of law. For example, our winning defense in a class action, Turek v. General Mills, which involved nutrient content claims, led to the first published federal appellate decision on the scope of Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) preemption.
To keep our clients up to date on emerging trends in CPG litigation, our team tracks filings and notable rulings daily. Examples of trends we have tracked and defended in recent years include:
- “Natural”
- Slack Fill
- Baby Food
- Ingredient Claims
- Serving Size
- Place of Origin
- Health Claims and Misrepresentation
- Harmful Ingredients
- Lack of Science
Proposition 65
Companies face an increasing risk that they will become the target of California’s Proposition 65 litigation. Virtually any consumer-facing company that conducts business in California is at risk, from manufacturers, to distributors and retailers. Our attorneys have defended a wide range of products, ranging from food to personal care products. We have focused on defending claims for virtually all chemicals that are allegedly found in these products, including:
- Arsenic
- Acetaldehyde
- Acrylamide
- Benzophenone
- Bisphenol A (BPA)
- Benzene
- Cadmium
- Diethanolamine
- Lead
- Mercury
- Phthalates
- Titanium Dioxide
PFAS, Trace Substances, and Microcontaminants
Our team represents clients against claims asserting the presence of trace substances, such as PFAS, in their food and CPG products. Our team can offer support in relation to all microcontaminant claims, including:
- PFAS
- Phthalates
- Heavy Metals
- Benzene
- Mercury
- Titanium Dioxide
- Ethylene oxide
- 2-chloroethanol
Sustainability & Packaging Laws
U.S. states have recently began enacting extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation that also impacts how businesses guide consumers on how to properly dispose of packaging. Multiple states have included other issues, such as environmental marketing claims, within these EPR laws. Our team is available to counsel clients on this rapidly evolving area of law, including with:
- Sustainability Claims Litigation Defense
- Compliance with States’ EPR & Packaging Laws
- Packaging and Label Review
Regulatory Compliance
Fortune 100 companies, emerging start-ups, trade associations, and investor and life science companies turn to our team to receive strategic and tailored regulatory advice across the breadth of products regulated by the FDA and USDA. Our food and CPG regulatory lawyers have deep experience in navigating the breadth of complex federal, state and global requirements for food, beverage, and dietary supplement products, providing advice regarding:
- FDA and USDA Regulation
- Food Tech Regulation
- SNAP, WIC, and TANF
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Representative Experience
Turek v. General Mills
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained dismissal on preemption grounds in this class action litigation involving nutrient content claims. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal, resulting in an opinion that is the first published federal appellate decision on the scope of Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) preemption.
In Re Cheerios
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained summary judgment in a multidistrict litigation, successfully showing that the named plaintiffs lacked proof of damages. An aggressive strategy of seeking summary judgment prior to class certification resulted in substantial litigation savings for the client.
Lam v. General Mills
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Dismissed the majority of the plaintiff’s complaint on NLEA preemption grounds. Our winnowing of the complaint allowed us to mount an aggressive defense to class certification, resulting in a favorable settlement before any class had been certified.
Proposition 65 Cereal Labeling Litigation
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Obtained dismissal on behalf of three different cereal companies in Proposition 65 labeling litigation in California. We achieved this result by a thorough investigation of the organization acting as plaintiff, which led to dismissal on standing grounds.
Taradejna v. General Mills
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Served as co-counsel and co-author of the briefing that led to the case dismissal on primary jurisdiction grounds. We later negotiated dismissals of two follow-on cases in California
Nature Valley All Natural Litigation
Acting as national coordinating defense counsel in five putative nationwide class action cases pending in California, Colorado, and Minnesota involving the use of the term “All Natural” on product labels.
Larsen, et al. v. Trader Joes
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Immaculate Baking Company in a putative class action against Trader Joe’s alleging that the use of the term “Natural” on certain Trader Joe’s products is false and misleading.
Harold Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Serving as lead counsel for Costco in this purported consumer class action alleging violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, mis-representation and negligence in connection with a claim of “natural caffeine” on a beverage sold at Costco under the name “VitaRain Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage.”
John Phelan v. Lifeway Foods, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Lifeway Foods, Inc. in a putative consumer class action alleging violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and related causes of state law in connection with claims that some of Lifeway’s kefir beverages provide heart-health and immunity benefits.
Rizvi And Qadri v. Krispy Krunchy Foods, LLC
Obtained dismissal for an alleged false labeling action involving an issue of halal chicken.