This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation

Jennifer Zizumbo, Chandra Zundel, and Adrianne Ordaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Unilever United States Inc., Upfield US Inc. (formerly known as Unilever BSC US Inc.), and Upfield Sourcing US Inc. (formerly known as Unilever BSC Sourcing US Inc.)

Published: Nov. 26, 2021 | Result Date: Jan. 6, 2020 | Filing Date: Nov. 29, 2018 |

Case number: 4:18-cv-07213-JSW Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Jeffrey S. White

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Adam J. Gutride
(Gutride Safier LLP)

Seth A. Safier
(Gutride Safier LLP)


Defendant

Claudia M. Vetesi
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Claire C. Bonelli
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)


Facts

Jennifer Zizumbo and others filed a lawsuit against Unilever United States Inc. and others. Unilever advertised one of their products, I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Spray, as containing zero fat and calories. According to plaintiffs, the Food and Drug Administration requires products to display a serving size that reflects the intended use of the product.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant falsely advertised its product as containing zero calories and fat when, in actuality, each 12 ounce bottle of spray had 1160 calories and 124 grams of fat. Plaintiffs also alleged that Unilever failed to disclose that the spray is 40 percent vegetable oil and that its minute serving size failed to account how consumers actually used the spray so that an actual spray of the product produced much more fat and calories than the posted serving size stated.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant's denied all contentions, asserting that plaintiffs could not recall which version of the product label was on the product they purchased and failed to prove that they purchased their product during the time they state the challenged information appeared in the spray product's advertising. They also claimed that in the spray type category, the serving size, fat and calories stated were compliant with applicable laws. Also, Unilever countered that it was not a proper defendant because defendant Upfield owns the product.

Result

The court granted summary judgment for defendant Unilever finding that plaintiffs failed to prove reliance, materiality, causation or injury.


#137934

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390