Is Organic The New Natural?: The Impact Of A Court Holding That An 'Organic' Claim Is Not Preempted By Federal Law

By now, class action suits over foods using the term "natural" are old news following the age old American story: class action plaintiff meets product, product assures plaintiff it is all-natural, plaintiff finds something in product that it doesn't think is natural, lawsuit ensues. Over the course of the last few years, cases challenging "natural" and "all-natural" claims have proliferated in the absence of a clear federal definition of natural, while cases involving "organic" claims have remained rare in light of detailed federal laws and regulations laying out a standard and a certification process for products labeled as organic. On May 7th, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) issued a ruling on a motion to dismiss in Segedie v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., allowing a consumer class action alleging false and misleading "organic" claims to move forward, finding that these claims under state consumer protection laws were not preempted by federal organic laws and regulations.

Case Background:

Plaintiffs in this case allege that they purchased various "Earth's Best" brand foods and other products sold by Hain Celestial. The complaint identifies 62 food products and 12 body care products labeled as "organic," and seven foods products and eight body care products labeled "natural" or "all natural", alleging that these claims were false and misleading because the product contain ingredients that they allege are synthetic or are not permitted in organic products under the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations, even if the products were certified organic by a USDA accredited certifying agent. Plaintiffs assert their claims under several state consumer protection statutes as well as the California Organic Products Act.

Organics Claims:

While the court allowed the "natural" claims to progress after a short consideration of the plausibility of the plaintiff's definition of "natural" and theory of deception, the vast majority of the opinion focused on whether the "organic" claims should be dismissed. The defendant argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff's organic claims under state consumer protection statutes are preempted by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) and corresponding NOP regulations. The court held that federal law did not preempt the state cause of action regarding the organic claims and denied the motion to dismiss with regards to those claims.

Court's Reasoning...