The court reasoned that because the crackers in fact contained whole grain, and because the front of each box clarified exactly how much whole grain was in the product, a reasonable consumer was not likely to believe that the crackers were made of predominantly whole grain. Mantikas v. Kellogg , No. 16-cv-2552, 2017 WL 2371183, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017). After all, the court emphasized, "a reasonable consumer would not be misled by a product’s packaging that states the exact amount of the ingredient in question."

The Product's label is as clear, if not more clear than, the labels of products in similar cases that have not survived a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., No. 16 Civ. 2552, 2017 WL 2371183, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017) (dismissing a claim under 12(b)(6) because a reasonable consumer seeing a box of crackers that says "MADE WITH WHOLE GRAIN," would not be deceived into believing that the crackers were made exclusively from whole grains) (applying New York and California law). Another court in this district recently dismissed a nearly identical complaint against a different olive oil manufacturer on these grounds in a two-page memorandum endorsement. See Jessani v. Monini North America, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 3257 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017), ECF No. 18. The Complaint's description of the rarity and cost of truffles also undermines the proposition that a "reasonable consumer acting reasonably" would expect the Product to contain actual black truffles.

For example, the district court in Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 10-CV-1028, 2012 WL 5504011, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) [hereinafter Kraft] denied Plaintiffs' request for class certification after holding as a matter of law that the "true representation" "Made with Real Vegetables" was not misleading when included on a package of Vegetable Thins crackers because such a statement would not deceive a reasonable consumer "familiar with the fact of life that a cracker is not composed of primarily fresh vegetables." Similarly, in Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., No. 16-CV-2552, 2017 WL 2371183, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017), the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the phrases "WHOLE GRAIN" and "MADE WITH WHOLE GRAIN" violated either New York's or California's consumer protection statutes after taking into consideration that "the [p]roduct's packaging truthfully state[d] that the [c]rackers [we]re made with whole grain." c. Images of Fresh Vegetables

Thus, he has failed to plead that he has standing to bring claims under the consumer protection statutes of those states. See In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litig., 1 F. Supp. 3d 34, 50 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of a class "under state laws to which Plaintiff [sic] have not been subjected"), reconsidered on other grounds, 14 F.Supp.3d 99 (E.D.N.Y.2014); see also Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., No. 16-CV-2552(SJF)(AYS), 2017 WL 2371183, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017) ("[A]n 'attempt to invoke the laws of [other states], based on the fact that the defendants make sales in those states or are headquartered there, lack[s] merit."

" In Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., a federal court granted a motion to dismiss claims under two states' consumer protection laws because "no reasonable consumer would believe that the [Cheez-It Whole Grain] Crackers were solely composed of whole grain, as the front of the Product's box explicitly stated otherwise." No. 16-2552, 2017 WL 2371183, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017). In Kommer v. Bayer Consumer Health, the plaintiff alleged that a kiosk "misleads consumers into thinking they are having custom orthotics designed specifically for their physiology," when in fact, "the Kiosk simply directs consumers to pick one of fourteen numbered, pre-manufactured Dr. Scholl's over-the-counter arch inserts."