Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Belch! Ocean Spray Price Premium Damages Model Passes Comcast Scrutiny

December 18, 2018 by Gary M. Pappas and Ryan P. Forrest

The Southern District of California certified a food labeling class against Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. based in part upon a price premium damages model developed by an aptly named Dr. Belch. The plaintiff, a self-proclaimed “health coach” and “label guru,” alleged Ocean Spray misrepresented that many of its juice products contained no artificial flavors when in fact they contained malic and fumaric acids, synthetic chemicals that simulate the advertised flavors. She asserted Ocean Spray’s juice labels violated various provisions of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act as well as other causes of action. The plaintiff sought to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of California consumers who purchased any of 12 specified Ocean Spray juices.

The court dispensed with Ocean Spray’s arguments as to Rule 23(a) requirements and devoted the majority of its attention to the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). As we have blogged about here and here, this inquiry asks whether the common, aggregation-enabling issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the class-defeating individual issues.

The plaintiff argued that liability under her statutory consumer fraud claims satisfied predominance because the claims centered on an objective standard that did not require proof of individual reliance: whether Ocean Spray’s representations that its juices did not contain artificial flavors were likely to deceive a reasonable customer. Ocean Spray’s only response on the liability issue was that the plaintiff did not prove the artificial ingredients in its juices were actually flavors. The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding Ocean Spray’s argument was an improper attempt to tread into the merits of the dispute at the class certification stage.

Next, the court conducted a rigorous analysis — as required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend — as to whether the plaintiff’s damages model for restitution to the class was consistent with her liability theory that Ocean Spray’s misrepresentations caused consumers to pay more than they otherwise would have. Such price premium damages models must link the consumer price differential to the defendant’s allegedly deceptive labeling to be acceptable, as we have blogged about here and here.

The plaintiff proffered two damages models. The first, prepared by an expert named Dr. Goedde, was based solely on a survey of California juice prices unrelated to Ocean Spray products. Dr. Goedde found customers paid a price premium of 25 percent for all-natural juice products. The court rejected this model because it was untethered to the plaintiff’s legal theories or Ocean Spray’s alleged misrepresentations and thus failed to satisfy Comcast.

Enter Dr. Belch, who proffered consumer survey results based on the contingent valuation methodology. The results purported to show customers preferred Ocean Spray’s juices without artificial flavoring and that they were willing to pay a premium of 61 cents to obtain such juices. The plaintiff then provided Dr. Belch’s survey to Dr. Goedde, who applied Dr. Belch’s findings to Ocean Spray’s actual unit sales during the class period to arrive at a restitution figure. The court found that this Belch-Goedde model satisfied the predominance requirement and Comcast because it accounted for both the consumer class demand and Ocean Spray supply-side factors in the market.

On the strength of the Belch-Goedde model, the court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class under the plaintiff’s statutory consumer fraud claims.

Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02335-GPC-MDD, 2018 WL 6245894 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2018)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Third Circuit Ascertainability Requirement Satisfied in FDCPA Class Against Law Firm

Next Article »

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Try Another CAFA Exception
Gary M. Pappas

About Gary M. Pappas

Gary Pappas is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Gary on LinkedIn.

Avatar

About Ryan P. Forrest

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.