McGee v. S-L Snacks National, No. 17-55577 (Dec. 4, 2020)
Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells popcorn containing partially hydrogenated oil (PHO), the dietary source of artificial trans fat.
Plaintiff purchased and consumed defendant’s popcorn for several years. The FDA banned PHO in 2015 as unsafe, and plaintiff filed a class action against defendant, alleging the popcorn caused her economic and physical injuries. Plaintiff cited studies confirming the harmful effects of PHO/trans fat to support her injury claims.
The district court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to allege an injury in fact and thus did not have standing. Plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, providing helpful guidance on the type of evidence needed to prove injury claims in products liability cases.
The court held the economic injury claim failed under both the benefit of the bargain and overpayment theories plaintiff asserted. Because the product label stated it contains trans fat, plaintiff’s assumption that the product only had safe ingredients was not part of the benefit of the bargain. The overpayment theory failed because plaintiff did not allege that defendant made any misrepresentations about the product. The court added that, even if the overpayment claim was viable, plaintiff did not allege the product had a hidden defect. Moreover, plaintiff could not say the product was worth less than one could reasonably expect because the product label stated it contains trans fat, and studies confirming trans fat’s harmful effects were available before plaintiff consumed the products.
The court held the physical injury claims failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that plaintiff did, in fact, suffer physical injuries. Specifically, the court noted plaintiff did not allege she underwent testing to confirm she was injured or that her injury was caused by the product. Moreover, plaintiff could not rely on studies finding that trans fat causes injuries because the studies did not support her claim that the amount of trans fat she consumed “invariably” caused injury. The studies plaintiff relied on also failed to establish plaintiff’s claim that the amount of trans fat she consumed each day put her at substantial risk of disease in the future.
