California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief in Gulkarov v. Plum, PBC, a case alleging unfair and deceptive practices after Plum failed to disclose that its baby food products contained trace amounts of heavy metals and perchlorate. The brief, submitted to the Ninth Circuit, defends consumers' rights under California’s consumer protection laws and supports the plaintiffs’ motion to bring the issue before the California Supreme Court.
“California is home to some of the most robust consumer protections nationwide and consumers deserve full protection under those laws. However, current lack of clarity inhibits effective enforcement of these laws and creates confusion,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We all understand that an omission can be as deceptive and harmful as an affirmative lie — the two should be treated the same when it comes to informing consumers about risks posed by the products they buy. I urge the Supreme Court to weigh in and apply Unfair Competition Law standards broadly to protect consumers from unfair and fraudulent business practices.”
In this lawsuit, consumer plaintiffs sued Plum under state consumer laws including California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law for allegedly selling certain baby food products without disclosing that they contained trace amounts of heavy metals, including lead, and perchlorate. There is no known safe level of exposure to lead. High levels of exposure to lead early in life can lead to learning disabilities and behavioral difficulties. Children are particularly vulnerable to potential harmful effects of lead exposure.
The district court granted judgment in favor of Plum under California consumer protection laws on grounds that plaintiffs failed to meet prerequisites for demonstrating a viable consumer protection claim based on omissions rather than misrepresentations. In his brief, Attorney General Bonta urges the Ninth Circuit to request that the California Supreme Court clarify standards for deciding omissions liability in consumer deception claims. The state Supreme Court has never treated deceptive omissions differently from deceptive statements within UCL contexts and has emphasized that plaintiffs need only show consumers are likely to be deceived. Attorney General Bonta argues this standard should apply equally across all deceptive business conduct.
Attorney General Bonta remains committed to advocating for transparency for California consumers seeking justice. In February 2024, he filed an amicus brief in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP regarding alleged unfair emergency room billing practices involving surprise fees charged to patients. In April 2024, he filed another amicus brief in Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., arguing that UCL actions are distinct from actions recovering policy benefits; thus an insurance policy claims period cannot override the four-year statute of limitations applicable to all UCL actions.
A copy of the brief can be found here.