Class Action Complaint Alleging Consumer Fraud/Deceptive Practices Based on Alleged Misrepresentation by McDonald’s as to Whether its Potato Products Contained Certain Allergens did not Warrant Class Action Treatment because Individual Issues Predominate Illinois Federal Court Holds
Plaintiffs filed a nationwide class action against McDonald’s alleging “violations of all of the fifty states’ and the District of Columbia’s consumer fraud and/or deceptive trade practices acts, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment”; the class action complaint asserted that plaintiffs suffer from “certain medical conditions” and were deceived by McDonald’s as to the ingredients contained in its french fries and hash browns. In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, McDonald’s would par-fry (or blanch) its potato products “in an oil made of 99% vegetable oil and 1% natural beef flavor”; the beef flavor, in turn, contained “hydrolyzed wheat bran and hydrolyzed casein (a dairy product).” _Id._ McDonald’s would advertise its potato products, however, as “gluten, wheat, and dairy-free,” thus making McDonald’s representations (according to the class action) “at best incorrect, if not intentionally misleading” – claims that McDonald’s denied. _Id._, at 2. (However, McDonald’s later corrected its disclosures about its potato products.) Plaintiffs disclaimed any physical injury from eating the potato products but alleged economic harm in that they would not have purchased products with allergens (i.e., gluten, wheat or dairy) but for McDonald’s misrepresentations. _Id._ The class action sought to recover the “actual economic harm” suffered by the putative class – “(_i.e._, the purchase price of the Potato Products) based on the difference in value between the gluten, wheat, dairy, and allergy-free products plaintiffs wanted and the non-conforming products they actually received.” _Id._, at 2-3. Plaintiffs’ moved the district court to certify the litigation as a nationwide class action; defense attorneys argued against class action treatment. _Id._, at 3-4. The district court determined that class action treatment was not warranted and therefore denied plaintiffs’ class action certification motion.
Plaintiffs proposed to define the nationwide class to include “All persons residing in the United States…(i) who purchased Potato Products from McDonald’s restaurants on or after February 27, 2002 through February 7, 2006 and (ii) who at the time of purchase had 3 been medically diagnosed with celiac disease, galactosemia, autism and/or wheat, gluten or dairy allergies.” McDonald’s, at 4. After summarizing the Rule 23 requirements governing class action motions and noting the “broad discretion” afforded district courts in deciding whether to grant such motions, see id., at 3-4, the court noted that plaintiffs sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, which requires (in addition to the four elements set forth in Rule 23(a) of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation) that plaintiffs demonstrate “(1) common issues of law and fact predominate, and (2) a class action is superior to other forms of adjudication,” id., at 4 (citation omitted). But preliminarily, the district court observed that the proposed class is overly broad, as the definition includes people who never saw or heard anything from McDonald’s concerning whether the potato products were allergen free. Id., at 5. This was important given that none of the named plaintiffs suffered any physical reaction from eating McDonald’s potato products despite allergens, id., at 6. As the federal court concluded at pages 6 and 7, “It is fairly assumable…that many persons in the class as defined by plaintiffs have gone on eating defendant’s Potato Products since defendant corrected its disclosure. By any definition, these people have suffered no injury, not even the economic one claimed in this lawsuit.”
As the court explained, “What is left is a class of persons who because of their diagnosis of celiac disease, galactosemia, autism or a wheat, gluten or dairy allergy would not have eaten McDonald’s French fries or hash browns if they had known they contained, potentially, a small amount of hydrolyzed wheat bran and hydrolyzed casein in the beef flavor that makes up one percent of the oil in which the potato suppliers par-fry the potatoes before shipping them to McDonald’s, and who relied on a representation by defendant that its Potato Products were wheat or milk free in purchasing and eating the french fries or hash browns.” McDonald’s, at 7. But this requires individual proof as to whether any injury was proximately caused by McDonald’s, and under Seventh Circuit authority class action certification is not warranted under such circumstances, see id., at 7-8. Moreover, trying to establish the individuals who suffered from one of the listed diagnoses would not have purchased the potato products will create an “evidentiary headache,” id., at 8. Put simply, “the court time that would need to be expended outweighs the gain to be realized.” Id., at 10. Class certification was not warranted, then, because the class definition was overly broad and because trial would be unmanageable, id.
But the district court also found that class action certification was not warranted under Rule 23(b)(3) because common issues do not predominate. See McDonald’s, at 10-12. “In a multi-state class action, ‘a district court must consider how variations in state law affect predominance and superiority.’” Id., at 10 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiffs made no showing that a single state’s laws would govern the action, and the federal court observed that courts considering certification of nationwide classes under such circumstances have “overwhelming” denied class action treatment. Id., at 11-12 (citations omitted). The court concluded that “individual issues of law clearly predominate over common issues, making a nationwide class unmanageable.” Id., at 12. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class action certification, id.
Download PDF file of In re McDonald’s French Fries Litigation
Comments are closed.