Rivka Steinberg v. Icelandic Provisions Inc.
Published: Oct. 14, 2022 | Result Date: Jan. 25, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 20, 2021 |Case number: 3:21-cv-05568-EMC Bench Decision – Dismissal
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael R. Reese
(Reese LLP)
George V. Granade II
(Reese LLP)
Spencer Sheehan
(Sheehan & Associates PC)
Defendant
Michael E. Bowlus
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Steven J. Rosenbaum
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Andrew J. Leff
(Covington & Burling LLP)
Facts
Icelandic Provisions Inc. manufactures and distributes Skyr, an Icelandic cultured dairy product akin to Greek yogurt. Skyr's packaging states, "Traditional Icelandic Skyr" and "Icelandic Provisions." On the back of the product, the package states "Distributed by Icelandic Provisions, New York, NY," "Developed in partnership with MS Iceland Dairires, Reykjavick, ISL," and "Proudly made in Batavia, NY with domestic and imported ingredients." On the product's side panel, it stated that it was "made with original Skyr cultures," "was developed with Iceland's oldest farmer-owned dairy," and "is the only Skyr available in the US that contains Icelandic Heirloom Skyr Cultures that Icelanders have been enjoying for centuries."
Contentions
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s label misrepresented that the product was made in Iceland, violating consumer protection laws. She noted that over a dozen other competing Icelandic skyr products label their products as “Icelandic style,” a more accurate description, unlike defendant’s product. She further contended that while the product was clearly made in New York, consumers would expect, based on the product’s labelling, that it was made in Iceland, containing skyr made there.” Authentic skyr, resulting from Icelandic dairy cows, contained unique probiotics. Moreover, traditional skyr production differed from methods used in the United States. Had she known that the product was not made in Iceland, she would have purchased one of the numerous, less costly “Icelandic style” skyr products from the other many competitors.
DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Defendants asserted that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that defendant’s conduct was likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Plaintiff lacked a viable misrepresentation theory as reasonable consumers would not be misled by the label and any confusion that could result from the label would be resolved by the label’s explicit identification of where the product was made.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390