Conclusion

The Importance of Supportive Allegations in Consumer Product Litigation: Lessons from Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently issued a significant decision in Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC, a case that highlights the importance of supportive allegations in consumer product litigation.

Avoid Conclusory Allegations of Contamination

The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding Fiji Water’s “Natural Artesian Water” labeling were insufficiently supported. Specifically, the allegations were conclusory, borrowed from purported third-party testing, or simply promised future testing. Thus, the court ruled that they failed to support a claim. Examples of unsupportive allegations include:

• Claims that a product “contains microplastics” without providing any information about when the testing was done, how it was done, or what it showed.
• Claims that a product “will contain microplastics” in the future, without describing the planned methodology or expected outcomes of such testing.

The court emphasized that bare assertions of contamination are not enough; they must be accompanied by specific, product-specific factual allegations that address the nature and extent of the contamination.

No Privilege for Hidden Factual Allegations

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to shield the underlying information on the testing under the guise of privilege. The court likened this to a poker player refusing to show their cards while claiming to have won the pot, making clear that privilege cannot be used to avoid pleading specific contemporaneous facts supporting contamination.

Regulatory Standards: Plausibility and Adulteration

The court’s decision underscores the need to meet the plausibility standard required for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. This standard may bring pleading standards into closer alignment with prevailing regulation, such as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards on adulteration.

• Under the FDA, adulteration occurs when a food, food ingredient, or dietary supplement is intentionally or unintentionally contaminated with a chemical or other substance.
• Plaintiffs must allege not only the presence of a contaminant but also that the contaminant exceeded permissible amounts.

This highlights the importance of companies being prepared to provide concrete factual allegations in support of their claims, rather than relying on vague or conclusory statements.

Future Testing is No Substitute for Current Factual Allegations

The court’s ruling also found that the allegations of future testing were irrelevant to the plausibility of the claim at the time of pleading. Such promises “say nothing about the facts as they exist now or as they existed at the time the amended complaint was filed.”

Examples of unsupportive allegations include:

• A promise to test a product in the future without specifying the methodology or expected outcomes.
• A promise to disclose results if the product contains contaminants.

This ruling is significant for consumer product companies facing similar claims, as it emphasizes the importance of providing concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on promises of future testing.

Implications for Consumer Product Companies

The Daly court expressed concern about the potential for abuse if plaintiffs could proceed to discovery based on unsupported allegations of contamination.

Pleading-Stage Defense Strategies

Companies facing similar claims are encouraged to consider this decision when formulating their pleading-stage defense strategies.

• Emphasize the importance of providing concrete factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on promises of future testing.
• Advocate for stricter pleading standards that require plaintiffs to provide evidence supporting their claims before proceeding to discovery.

This decision underscores the importance of supporting allegations in consumer product litigation and provides valuable guidance for companies facing similar claims.

Avoid Conclusory Allegations of Contamination: The Importance of Product-Specific Factual Allegations

The Daly court’s decision highlights the need for companies to be prepared to provide concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on vague or conclusory statements.

Case Examples: Fiji Water and Microplastics

The case of Fiji Water and microplastics provides a specific example of the importance of providing concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage.

• The plaintiff alleged that Fiji Water’s “Natural Artesian Water” labeling was misleading because the product allegedly contained microplastics, and was therefore not “natural.”
• The allegations failed to provide any information about when the testing was done, how it was done, or what it showed.
• The allegations also failed to address whether the microplastics were in the bottles of water before they were opened, which would be necessary to assess whether the “Natural” label statement was deceptive.

This example illustrates the importance of providing concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on promises of future testing or vague statements.

Regulatory Standards and Pleading Standards

The Daly court’s decision highlights the need for companies to align their pleading standards with prevailing regulatory standards, such as FDA standards on adulteration.

FDA Standards on Adulteration

Under the FDA, adulteration occurs when a food, food ingredient, or dietary supplement is intentionally or unintentionally contaminated with a chemical or other substance.

• Plaintiffs must allege not only the presence of a contaminant but also that the contaminant exceeded permissible amounts.

This highlights the importance of companies being prepared to provide concrete factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on vague or conclusory statements.

The Importance of Concrete Factual Allegations at the Pleading Stage

The Daly court’s decision emphasizes the importance of concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on promises of future testing or vague statements.

Avoiding Abuse of the Discovery Process

The Daly court expressed concern about the potential for abuse if plaintiffs could proceed to discovery based on unsupported allegations of contamination.”

• Avoid filing conclusory allegations of contamination and promises of future testing.
• Avoid relying on privilege to shield factual allegations.

This highlights the importance of providing concrete, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, rather than relying on promises of future testing or vague statements. Table 1: Key Takeaways from Daly v.