SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) - The Mediterranean food restaurant chain Cava Grill must still face claims that is misled customers when it claimed its products were "evolved to be smarter, healthier and more transparent."
San Diego federal judge Michael Anello on Feb. 8 dismissed some claims in a proposed class action over the presence of chemicals known as PFAS in Cava's packaging. The case is one of a number of consumer class actions over the controversial chemicals whose exact effect on the human body is unknown.
PFAS are found in firefighting foam and consumer products like non-stick cookware and have made their way into the bloodstreams of virtually every American
PFAS lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems, some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS affect the human body is incomplete.
Meanwhile, as the government still requires PFAS in its firefighting foam on military bases, lawyers pursue litigation like an Ohio class action that alleges no illnesses. Most PFAS cases are sent to a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in South Carolina federal court.
The case against Cava Grill is similar to others against chains like Burger King and McDonald's and alleges Cava misled consumers with promises to rid its packaging of PFAS.
Judge Anello dismissed eight claims made in the Cava case but denied dismissal of four others. He's allowing plaintiff lawyers at Bursor & Fisher to file a new complaint.
He gave the green light to claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and violation of California's False Advertising Law.
"Plaintiffs premise their claims on the theory that the marketing materials they relied on in purchasing Defendant's products are misleading because they fail to disclose that they contain organic fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, while claiming that the products are 'healthy' and 'sustainable,'" Anello wrote.
"How reasonable consumers would interpret Defendant's representations in its marketing is a question of fact, and not a question that the court can resolve at this stage."