CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) - A federal judge has rejected class action allegations that Walmart's honey is too hot to be considered organic and raw.
Chicago judge Lindsay Jenkins granted Walmart's motion to dismiss on Feb. 22 in plaintiff John Wertymer's lawsuit, which also alleges Walmart adds foreign sugars during processing. Spencer Sheehan and lawyers from Krislow & Associates and Kent Heitzinger & Associates filed the case.
Jenkins rejected their fraud claims in a seven-page order.
"(T)here are no allegations about what a reasonable consumer would believe about raw or organic honey, or about what Wertymer believed when he bought the products at issue here; nor are there factual allegations that permit the Court to infer what a reasonable consumer would expect about honey products," her ruling says.
"The lack of such allegations means that Wertymer cannot satisfy the 'how' required to plead a plausible fraud claim under Rule 9(b). Wertymer has not alleged what a reasonable consumer would believe about honey products; thus, he has not plausibly alleged how Walmart deceived customers."
According to Wertymer's allegations, Walmart is misleading consumers by labeling its Great Value-brand honey products as "raw" and/or "organic." He claims Walmart adds "foreign sugars" to its "Organic Raw Honey" and "excessively heats" the honey during processing, which causes the enzymes in the raw honey to be destroyed.
Specifically, Wertymer alleges Walmart uses Mannose, a mono saccharide not found in honey but regularly found in industrial sugars. He further alleges Walmart had actual knowledge that its Organic Raw Honey and Raw Honey are not raw or organic and do not have the benefits of raw honey.
Walmart argued in its motion to dismiss that its "Raw Honey" and "Organic Raw Honey" satisfy the U.S. Department of Agriculture's definition of "raw honey." It adds the following arguments:
-Wertymer's own lab found no foreign sugars;
-A product's status as organic is not impacted by foreign sugars unless those sugars are prohibited by governing federal regulations;
-Wertymer can't allege the honey he bought is worth less than what he paid for it;
-He alleges no violation of a public policy or conduct so oppressive that consumers couldn't avoid it;
-He can't show Walmart had knowledge any statement was false;
-He does not face threat of future injury; and
-He has not alleged an intention to buy the honey again in the future.