By: Alexander M. Smith 

While some varieties of food labeling lawsuits (such as lawsuits challenging the labeling of “natural” products) show no sign of dying off, other trends in food labeling litigation have come and gone. Last year, for example, appeared to mark the end of lawsuits challenging the labeling of zero-calorie beverages as “diet” sodas. And this year may witness the end — or, at least, the beginning of the end — of lawsuits challenging the labeling of “white” candy that is not technically “white chocolate,” at least as the FDA defines that term.

Although it is difficult to pinpoint the beginning of “white” chocolate litigation, the leading case for many years was Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 864 (N.D. Cal. 2012). There, the court declined to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the labeling of Ghirardelli’s “Classic White” baking chips. The court concluded that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that a variety of statements on the packaging — including “Classic White,” “Premium,” “Luxuriously Smooth and Creamy,” “Melt-in-Your-Mouth-Bliss,” and “Finest Grind for Smoothest Texture and Easiest Melting” — collectively misled the plaintiff into believing that the product was made with “real” white chocolate, even though it was not. Id. at 873-74. Emboldened by this decision, plaintiffs in California, New York, and elsewhere began filing a wave of similar class actions challenging the labeling of “white” chocolate, baking chips, and other candy. Since the beginning of this year, however, courts have begun dismissing “white” chocolate lawsuits with increasing frequency.

In Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., for example, the plaintiffs — like the plaintiffs in Miller — challenged the labeling of Ghirardelli Classic White Premium Baking Chips as misleading. --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 19-7467, 2020 WL 1701840, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020). Although the plaintiffs alleged that the product’s labeling misled them into believing that the product contained white chocolate, the court found this theory of deception implausible and dismissed the complaint. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that the labeling did not include the terms “chocolate” or “cocoa” and that the term “white” referred to the color of the chips, rather than the presence of white chocolate or the quality of the chips. Id. at *4-5. Much as the term “white wine . . . does not inform the consumer whether the wine is a zinfandel or gewürztraminer,” the court reasoned that the adjective “white” was not probative of whether the chips contained white chocolate. Id. at *5. Likewise, even if some consumers might misunderstand the term “white” to refer to white chocolate, the court concluded that this would not salvage the plaintiffs’ claims; according to the court, the fact that “some consumers unreasonably assumed that ‘white’ in the term ‘white chips’ meant white chocolate chips does not make it so.”  The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ remaining theories of deception: it concluded that the term “premium” was non-actionable puffery (id. at *5-6); it held that the image of white chocolate chip macadamia cookies on the package did not “convey a specific message about the quality of those chips” (id. at *7); and it held that consumers could not ignore the ingredients list, which made clear that the product did not include white chocolate and resolved any ambiguity about its ingredients (id. at *7-8). And while the plaintiffs attempted to amend their complaint to bolster their theory of deception, the court concluded that their new allegations — including a summary of a survey regarding consumer perceptions of the labeling — did not render their theory any more plausible and dismissed their lawsuit with prejudice. See Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 4039365, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2020).

By: Charles D. Riely and Michael F. Linden

A recent enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the Fintech space serves as a cautionary tale for innovators who fail to heed traditional regulations. On July 13, 2020, the SEC and CFTC each filed settled enforcement actions against California-based cryptocurrency app developer Abra and its related company, Plutus Technologies Philippines Corporation. Abra’s bold idea was to provide its global users with a way to invest in blue-chip American securities, all funded via Bitcoin. In executing this idea, Abra took pains to focus its products outside of the United States and hoped to avoid the ambit of US securities laws. As further detailed below, however, the SEC and CFTC both found that Abra’s new product violated US laws. This post details Abra’s product, why the regulators came to the view that the new idea ran afoul of long-established provisions under federal securities and commodities laws, and the key takeaways from the regulators’ actions.

1. Abra’s Product

In 2018, Abra began offering users synthetic exposure, via Bitcoin, to dozens of different fiat currencies and a variety of digital currencies, like Ethereum and Litecoin. Users could fund their accounts with a credit card or bank account, and Abra would convert those funds into Bitcoin. When a user wanted exposure to a new currency, the user would choose the amount of Bitcoin he or she wanted to invest, Abra would create a “smart contract” on the blockchain memorializing the terms of the contract, and the value of the contract would move up or down in direct relation to the price of the reference currency.

By: Michael W. Ross, Williams S.C. Goldstein, Amy Egerton-Wiley and Maria E. LaBella

Last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) adopted a final rule clarifying that the terms of a national bank’s loans remain valid even after such loans are sold or transferred.  The rule was intended to reject the Second Circuit’s decision in Madden v. Midland Funding 786 F.3d 246 (2015).  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) followed suit later in the month, adopting a rule to clarify that interest rates on state bank-originated loans are not affected when the bank assigns the loan to a nonbank.  These steps do not resolve all of the uncertainty surrounding the decision, as discussed further below.

1. The Madden v. Midland Funding

In Madden v. Midland Funding, Saliha Madden, a New York resident, contracted with Bank of America for a credit card with a 27% interest rate.  That rate exceeded the 25% usury cap under New York law.  But, as a national bank, Bank of America believed that it was entitled to “export” the interest rate of Delaware, its place of incorporation, under the National Bank Act and attendant principles of federal preemption.  By the time Madden defaulted, the balance had been acquired by Midland Funding, a debt collector headquartered in California.  When Midland Funding tried to collect the debt at the 27% interest rate, Madden sued under New York usury laws.  She argued that Midland could not take advantage of Bank of America’s interest-rate exportation.