NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – The woman who sued TGI Friday’s because the potato skins snacks from the chip aisle in the grocery store didn’t contain real potato skins will be allowed to proceed with her fraud theory.
On June 8, New York federal judge Katherine Polk Failla reached a variety of rulings in the case, including the dismissal of Utz and TGI Friday’s as parties to it.
When filed, the lawsuit drew the attention of the state’s legal reform group, which said the case was likely pushed by lawyers and not plaintiff Solange Troncoso. She is represented by Lee Litigation Group, a prolific filer of consumer class actions.
“A lot of these suits are filed as ‘strike suits’ against companies with deep pockets, so they settle quickly,” Adam Morey, of the New York Lawsuit Reform Alliance, told Legal Newsline then.
It all supposedly started on June 30, 2018, when Troncoso bought a bag of the snacks, which are manufactured by Inventure Foods. The company has a licensing agreement with TGI Friday’s to use its trademark on the package.
Troncoso claims that, because of the packaging and because TGI Friday’s sells a potato skin appetizer at its restaurants, she was led to believe the snacks would contain real potato skins.
The only potato-based ingredients are “potato flakes” and “potato starch.”
Troncoso sued in March 2019, making several consumer protection claims as well as a request for injunctive relief that would prevent Inventure from marketing the product as potato skins.
Judge Failla found Troncoso lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief.
“Plaintiff failed to allege an intent to purchase the snack chips in the future, and therefore she has not established a likelihood of future injury sufficient to show standing,” she ruled.
However, Failla found the plaintiff stated a sufficient claim for false advertising under New York General Business Law, even though she says the lawsuit is “perhaps intentionally” not clear about the plaintiff’s theory of the case.
She threw out claims that reasonable consumers would assume the snacks would contain thick slices of potato or be identical to the TGI Friday’s restaurant appetizer.
But Troncoso plausibly alleged reasonable consumers would believe the snacks contain potato peels, Failla ruled.
“Plaintiff has satisfactorily alleged a nexus between a lack of potato peels and the snack chips in question,” the ruling says.
Thus, Troncoso will get to pursue her claim for common law fraud against Inventure, as TGI Friday’s was dismissed because it merely licensed its name and Utz was dismissed because it is only Inventure’s parent company.