SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – The makers of Pringles chips want the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging they offered false advertisements of ingredients in a flavor of chips.

In their July 19 motion for dismissal of the class action in its entirety, defendants Kellogg Co., Kellogg Sales Co., and Pringles LLC claim the plaintiffs come up short for lack of standing and try to sidestep that matter by claiming they “intend to, desire to and  will purchase the product again when they can do so with the assurance  that the product’s label, which indicates the product is naturally  flavored, is lawful and consistent with the product’s ingredients.”

Barry Allred and Mandy C. Allred filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the general public on May 11 in the California Superior Court of San Diego County against Kellogg Co., Kellogg Sales Co. and Pringles LLC alleging false advertising and unfair competition.

In their original complaint, the Allreds contend that Kellogg’s Pringles Salt and Vinegar flavored chips contain additional flavoring ingredients that are not listed on the front label.

Moreover, they also allege that Kellogg unlawfully and completely failed to disclose that the product contains two artificial flavors.

Kellogg maintains that by claiming to know that Pringles allegedly contains artificial ingredients, they are less likely to be misled and aren’t very likely to suffer a repeat of the incident.

In a response to the motion to dismiss, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand Aug. 4 over allegations that Kellogg failed to prove the case should be removed from the California Superior Court.

The plaintiffs also point out that Kellogg is presumptuous to assume that class members would simply seek a full refund for packages of Pringles Salt & Vinegar Potato Crisps during the period, a move they reject.

Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that Kellogg’s calculation of damages are “over-inclusive and speculative." The defendants also allegedly lack factual support.

Kellogg, according to the plaintiffs, also has failed to provide a price premium damages calculation worthy of summary judgment.

In making an argument for the case to be returned to superior court, the plaintiffs cite McGill v. Citibank, N.A., noting that the California Supreme Court has recently “re-affirmed that public injunctive relief is the 'primary' remedy available to consumers for violations of California’s consumer protection laws.”

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ?
Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
221 W Broadway
San Diego, CA - 92101

More News