Most recently, this Court dismissed two other cases alleging that a label was deceptive because the consumer expected a certain amount of an ingredient in a product. See Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 2599871 (N.D. Ill. 2023); Gardner v. Ferrara Candy Co., 2023 WL 2599857 (N.D. Ill. 2023).
Courts in this district have repeatedly rejected similar arguments where labels highlight an ingredient, but the product contains other ingredients as well. See Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 4534543, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (“A statement about the presence of an ingredient is not a promise about the amount of the ingredient. A claim cannot rest on a mere reference to an ingredient that is, in fact, an ingredient unless something else makes that statement misleading.”) (collecting cases); Gardner v. Ferrara Candy Co., 2023 WL 4535906, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (“Courts widely dismiss claims that a product contained only a de minimis amount of an ingredient when the packaging itself did not promise more.”)
Courts in this district have repeatedly rejected this argument in similar circumstances. See Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 4534543, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (“A statement about the presence of an ingredient is not a promise about the amount of the ingredient.
In that case, a court can dismiss the claim on a motion to dismiss.” See Geske v. PNY Tech., Inc., 503 F.Supp.3d 687, 705 (N.D. Ill. 2020); see also Bober, 246 F.3d at 938-39; Fuchs v. Menard, Inc., 2017 WL 4339821, at *5 (N.D. Ill. 2017); Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 4534543 (N.D. Ill. 2023) (dismissing allegations that lemon bubble water wasn't lemony enough); Gardner v. Ferrara Candy Co., 2023 WL 4535906 (N.D. Ill. 2023) (dismissing allegations that caramel candy wasn't creamy enough)
“The claim requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that: (1) the defendant made a false statement of material fact, (2) the defendant knew that the statement was false, (3) the defendant intended that the statement induce the plaintiff to act, (4) the plaintiff did act in reliance on the statement, and (5) the plaintiff was damaged from her reliance on the statement.” Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 4534543, at *10 (N.D. Ill. 2023) (citing Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 675 N.E.2d 584, 591 (Ill. 1996)); see also Doe v. Dilling, 888 N.E.2d 24, 35 (Ill. 2008). BlueTriton challenges Plaintiffs' Article III standing, so the Court starts there.
What matters is how a reasonable consumer would read the packaging.” Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 4534543, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2023).
Words don't mean whatever we want them to mean.” Matthews v. Polar Corp., Case No. 22-cv-649, 2023 WL 4534543, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023). Ignoring this truth, Plaintiff, playing Humpty Dumpty to the Court's Alice, moves to set aside the entry of summary judgment against her.
De Bouse went on to state, "We have repeatedly emphasized that in a consumer fraud action, the plaintiff must actually be deceived by a statement or omission." See also Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., 596 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1057 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (quoting Darne v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-03594, 2017 WL 3836586, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2017)) ("Under the ICFA, an 'omission' is an omission from a communication, rather than a general failure to disclose."); Matthews v. Polar Corp., No. 22-649, 2023 WL 4534543, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (where the defendant did not make specific representations as to the product, the plaintiff could not assert a misrepresentation claim.) ("She can't bring a misrepresentation claim about a representation that isn't there.").
Other courts have rejected similar theories. See, e.g., Lesorgen v. Mondelez Glob., LLC, No. 3:22-CV-50375, 674 F.Supp.3d 459, 465-66 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2023); Matthews v. Polar Corp., No. 22-CV-649, 2023 WL 4534543, at *6-8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2023) (determining that plaintiffs "can't bring a misrepresentation claim about a representation that isn't there" because "[w]ithout a representation, there is no misrepresentation").
So, the Court assumes that these statutes are substantially similar to the ICFA. See, e.g., Matthews v. Polar Corp., 2023 WL 2599871, at *5 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2023); DeMaso v. Walmart Inc., 655 F.Supp.3d 696, 704 n.4 (N.D. Ill. 2023); Hamidani v. Bimbo Bakehouse LLC, 2023 WL 167513, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 2023); Jacobs v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 621 F.Supp.3d 894, 897-98 (N.D. Ill. 2022). To satisfy the first element, Castaneda must plead facts plausibly showing a deceptive act or practice.