Marshall v. Herndon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the phrase “no refined sugars” on a granola bar label could not reasonably be understood to mean that the bar contained sugar cane in its natural form
• applying Illinois law and finding Plaintiff’s fraud claims not plausible because “no reasonable consumer” would have been misled (emphasis added)
• dismissing claims after determining that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that statements were deceptive as a matter of law under ICFA
• finding implausible a claim that a label with the phrase “no refined sugars” was deceptive because sugar must be refined to be edible
• dismissing ICFA claim because plaintiff’s interpretation of “no refined sugar” to mean only naturally occurring, unrefined sugars was implausible because any sugar appropriate for human consumption must be partially refined
• dismissing express breach of warranty claim due to plaintiff’s failure to provide pre-suit notice and explaining that “[a]t this point, it would be impossible for [plaintiff] to provide pre-litigation notice of the breach of warranty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).