![]() ![]() “It merely used the phrase ‘Golden Butter’ without elaboration.” “A reasonable consumer would not need to scrutinize fine print to understand the truth behind a prominent packaging claim and… the packaging did not emphasize simplicity or other virtues,” Castel wrote. It claimed oil was used as shortening but Sheehan then learned that only butter is, leading to the filing of an amended complaint.īuyers have paid higher prices than they would have if they had known the crackers weren’t as buttery as they were promised to be, the suit says. ![]() Sheehan’s lawsuit complained about vegetable oil in the crackers, alleging the branding and packaging is designed to deceive customers. The Complaint does not plausibly allege why a reasonable consumer also would believe that the use of butter precluded secondary usage of other fats or oils, either as an additional shortener or for external application to enhance the crackers’ appearance.” “A reasonable consumer who encountered defendant’s packaging would accurately understand the ‘Golden Butter’ cracker to be shortened and flavored with butter. “A reasonable consumer could believe that ‘Golden Butter’ described the product’s flavor and was not a representation about ingredient proportions,” Castel wrote. Like most of Sheehan’s other food lawsuits, which number in the hundreds, a judge was asked to decide if a “reasonable consumer” would be misled by the packaging. ![]() He becomes at least the fourth judge to toss a lawsuit over the butter content in food. NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – A federal judge isn’t buying a class action lawsuit that accuses Pepperidge Farm of tricking customers into thinking “Golden Butter” crackers aren’t made with enough butter.Ībout five months after the company asked Judge Kevin Castel to toss attorney Spencer Sheehan’s lawsuit, Castel agreed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |