Chacanaca v. QUAKER OATS COMPANY

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the issues that survive defendant’s 17 preemption arguments . . . do not entail technical questions or require agency expertise”
• finding that “wholesome” and “smart choices made easy” on a decal cannot be dismissed as puffery
• stating that 3 plaintiffs advance a “relatively straightforward claim: they assert that defendant has violated FDA 4 regulations and marketed a product that could mislead a reasonable consumer. This is a question 5 courts are well-equipped to handle”
• finding injury in fact based on “the purchase of food products that contain an ingredient the plaintiffs find objectionable” and which they otherwise “would not have purchased”
• rejecting primary jurisdiction doctrine as to claims of misleading marketing, because “courts are well-equipped to handle” misleading marketing challenges relating to food labeling
• finding consumers 4 lacked standing to bring Section 43(a) claim where granola bar manufacturer’s statements did not 5 cause injury that was harmful to consumers’ ability to compete with manufacturer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).