Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45120, 2011 WL 1514702, 275 F.R.D. 282 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a consumer fraud class action, common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues when a defendant's marketing and packaging consistently communicates a single, overarching, material, and allegedly false message, even if individual consumers were exposed to different variations of advertisements or packaging over time.
Facts:
- General Mills, Inc. and Yoplait USA, Inc. (collectively 'General Mills') manufactured and sold a yogurt product named YoPlus.
- Through product packaging, television commercials, and print and internet advertisements, General Mills represented that YoPlus promotes digestive health.
- Over several years, General Mills sold YoPlus in multiple 'generations' of packaging with modified marketing materials.
- Mr. Johnson saw the YoPlus packaging and a television commercial communicating the digestive health benefit.
- Relying on this representation, Mr. Johnson purchased YoPlus.
- Mr. Johnson alleges that YoPlus does not provide any digestive health benefit beyond that of ordinary yogurt, and that he therefore suffered economic injury by not receiving the benefit for which he paid.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Johnson filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint against General Mills, Inc. and Yoplait USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and breach of express warranties.
- General Mills filed a motion for summary judgment against Mr. Johnson's individual claims, which the court denied.
- Mr. Johnson subsequently represented that he was dismissing the breach of warranty claims.
- Mr. Johnson filed a motion for class certification for the remaining UCL and CLRA claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a proposed class of consumers who purchased yogurt based on allegedly false 'digestive health' claims meet the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, specifically the commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements?
Opinions:
Majority - Carney, J.
Yes. A class action is the appropriate method for adjudicating these claims because the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met. The court found that the proposed class satisfied the four requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity (thousands of purchasers), commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Regarding commonality, the key issues—whether General Mills communicated a material representation, whether that representation was false, and the proper method for calculating damages—are common to all class members. Citing In re Tobacco II Cases, the court noted that under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), an inference of reliance arises for absent class members if a misrepresentation is material, so individual proof of reliance is not required for the class. The court also found the more rigorous Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority were met. Common issues predominate because the central question is whether General Mills’ campaign communicated a 'persistent and material message that YoPlus promotes digestive health,' which overrides minor individual variations in exposure to different packaging or ads. Finally, a class action is superior because individual claims for an inexpensive product are impractical, and resolving the complex scientific evidence about the yogurt's benefits in one action is far more efficient than in thousands of individual suits.
Analysis:
This case illustrates how courts apply the class certification standard in consumer fraud cases involving extensive marketing campaigns. The decision emphasizes that minor variations in advertising or packaging over time do not necessarily defeat the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), so long as a 'common and conspicuous theme' persists. It reinforces a key principle from California law (In re Tobacco II Cases) that for UCL claims, only the named plaintiff must plead individual reliance; reliance can be inferred for absent class members if the misrepresentation was material to a reasonable consumer. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to defeat class certification by highlighting small differences in how class members were exposed to the allegedly deceptive marketing.
