Renn v. Otay Lakes Brewery, LLC

Majority - Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel

1. No, labeling an alcoholic beverage as 'healthy,' 'balanced,' or 'good for you' does not constitute non-actionable puffery under California's consumer protection laws. The court found that health-related statements on food products cannot be dismissed as puffery at the motion to dismiss stage because consumers rely on such claims when making purchasing decisions. The phrases 'health, balance' and 'good for you' imply the products are healthy, and Renn provided a measurable way to define 'healthy' by alleging the product's 6-8% alcohol content causes health risks, supported by medical evidence. Even if some statements are puffery on their own, they cannot be dismissed if they contribute to a deceptive context as a whole, citing Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co. and Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.. 2. No, a plaintiff can plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by 'health, balance' and 'good for you' claims on an alcoholic product's label, even when a Surgeon General's warning is prominently displayed. Claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) are governed by the 'reasonable consumer' test, which requires a probability that a significant portion of the public could be misled. Whether a reasonable person would likely be deceived is generally a question of fact, making dismissal at this stage rare, per Williams. The court rejected the argument that a Surgeon General’s warning necessarily dispels deception, noting that consumers should not be expected to look beyond misleading front-of-package representations for the truth. Citing Marek v. Molson Coors Beverage Co. and Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., the court concluded that it cannot determine, as a matter of law, that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the labels at issue, even with the warning. 3. No, Albert Renn lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief based on the representation that the products are 'healthy' because he cannot establish a real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future. To have standing for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a 'real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future,' as established in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports. While Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. allows standing if a consumer is unable to rely on future advertising or might repurchase assuming product improvement, Renn's allegations are distinguishable. Renn alleged he was seeking a 'healthy' kombucha and now knows the product contains 6-8% alcohol, which he claims has no safe level of consumption. Therefore, even if the product were relabeled to remove misleading health claims, he would not likely purchase it because he is seeking an inherently 'healthy' drink. The court cannot impose a mandatory injunction requiring Otay Lakes to 'reformulate' its products (i.e., change their fundamental nature by removing alcohol). The Ninth Circuit, in In re Coca-Cola Prods. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., held that a 'bare procedural violation' or 'informational injury that causes no adverse effects' is insufficient for Article III standing. Renn's desire for truthful labels, without more, does not demonstrate a particularized adverse effect for future harm in this specific context.