Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation

Protecting your brand, reducing your risk.

When food and consumer packaged goods companies face litigation, they need a team with experience in all facets of the industry, from compliance with sustainability laws to responding to claims of microcontaminants.

For more than a decade, Perkins Coie lawyers have defended consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies in challenges to their labeling, marketing, and advertising. We understand the legal and regulatory environment and strategies of the plaintiffs’ bar. Most importantly, we make it our business to understand the business objectives of our clients in these competitive industries.

The biggest names in food and CPG, such as General Mills, Amazon, Keurig, Dr. Pepper, and Costco, trust us to protect their valuable brands. We craft and deploy strategies 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; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and packaging; and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Federal Trade Commission 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.

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. Our winning defense in Turek v. General Mills, involving 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 terms and 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

Key contact

David T. Biderman

Partner

Charles C. Sipos

Partner

Proposition 65

Virtually any consumer-facing company that conducts business in California, from manufacturers to distributors and retailers, is at risk of being targeted with Proposition 56 litigation. Our lawyers have defended a wide range of claims, ranging from those involving food items to personal care products. We have focused on defending claims regarding clients’ products, including one or more of the following:

Arsenic
Acetaldehyde
Acrylamide
Benzophenone
Bisphenol A (BPA)
Benzene
Cadmium
Diethanolamine
Lead
Mercury
Phthalates
Titanium dioxide

Key contact

Jasmine Wetherell

Partner

PFAS, Trace Substances & Microcontaminants

Our team represents clients against claims asserting the presence of trace substances, such as Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in their food and CPG products. We offer support in relation to all microcontaminant claims, including those involving:

PFAS
Phthalates
Heavy metals
Benzene
Mercury
Titanium dioxide
Ethylene oxide
2-chloroethanol

Key contact

Jasmine Wetherell

Partner

Sustainability & Packaging Laws

U.S. states have recently begun enacting extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation that affects how businesses guide consumers on proper packaging disposal. 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 and packaging laws.
Packaging and label review.

Key contact

Kristine E. Kruger

Senior Counsel

Regulatory Compliance

Fortune 100 companies, emerging startups, trade associations, investors, and life science companies are among the organizations that engage our lawyers for strategic regulatory advice about products regulated by the FDA and USDA. These include:

FDA and USDA regulation.
Food tech regulation.
SNAP, WIC, and TANF.

Key contact

Brian P. Sylvester

Partner

联系方式

浏览相关专业人员信息

David T. Biderman

Partner

DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

Notice

Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.

Charles C. Sipos

Partner

CSipos@perkinscoie.com

Notice

洞察

更多见解

Publication

Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2024

Event

March 28, 2025

Intersections or Patchwork, or Both—Oh My! A Close Examination of Closer to Zero, Red No. 3, and Other Food and Dietary Supplement Issues on Both the State and Federal Levels, Including the Future of GRAS

Update

February 12, 2025

Washington Department of Ecology's Interim Policy on Lead in Cosmetics

Event

February 11, 2025

Food and Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation Year in Review 2024 and What’s on the 2025 Legal and Regulatory Landscape

Event

February 06, 2025

Beauty & Personal Care Industry Roundtable

动态

更多动态

January 15, 2024

Brian Sylvester, David Biderman, Tommy Tobin Quoted in Food Navigator—Prop 65 Cases Spike Post-Pandemic with Focus on Heavy Metals, Settlement Amounts Rise

November 27, 2023

Brian Sylvester and Tommy Tobin Quoted in Food Dive—Cultivated Meat Labeling Puzzle Could Bring Legal Headaches

October 04, 2023

Tommy Tobin Quoted in CNN—McDonald’s and Wendy’s Win False Advertising Lawsuit

September 24, 2023

Tommy Tobin Quoted in CNN—Burgers and Tacos Don’t Look Like They Do in Ads. Lawsuits are Trying to Change That

代理经验

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.