FRESNO, Calif. (CN) — A chocolate confection maker received a sour ruling Friday when a federal judge denied its motion for judgment on the pleadings, deciding that a putative class action about misleading labeling can continue.
Sharon James and Patricia Rodriguez claim “Truffettes de France,” a product of Chocmod USA Inc., isn’t from France. Instead, it’s from Canada. The labeling led the two women, along with the putative class, to pay a premium for the product they believed came from France.
“Specifically, the front label of the product includes the conspicuous representation ‘Truffettes de France,’ a French phrase literally translating to ‘Truffles from France,’” the women claim in their suit. “This is an unequivocal representation that the chocolate truffles are made in and imported from France.”
Chocmod pushed back, filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings in 2023. It argued the product labels aren’t likely to deceive reasonable people, that it made no promises about the product’s origin and that there’s no standalone cause of action for unjust enrichment. Additionally, Chocmod posited that the women didn’t claim any damages and had no standing, meaning they can’t prevail based on laws like the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston on Friday rejected each prong of its argument.
In her ruling, the Joe Biden appointee wrote that a practice can be deemed deceptive at this stage if a large part of targeted consumers could be misled.
“Here, the brand name ‘Truffettes de France,’ or ‘Truffles from France,’ is not ambiguous,” Thurston ruled. “This affirmative representation would plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer to conclude, without more information, that the truffles are, indeed, from France.”
She found the labeling, unlike other products, doesn’t infer that it originated from France. Instead, the label represented that the truffles are made in France.
“Despite how defendant chooses to characterize the truffles, the front labels do not contain phrases such as ‘French-style truffles’ or ‘French truffles,” the judge wrote.
Thurston also waved aside an argument that the country of origin isn’t an issue because the product made in Canada is identical to the one made in France. The injury is economic — the women wouldn’t have bought the item, or not paid a premium for it, had they known its true origin.
Pivoting to the unjust enrichment claim, Thurston wrote that the women bought the truffles based on misleading representations. Chocmod received their money in exchange for the product, and the women didn’t get its full value. Allowing the company to keep the money would be unjust, which is sufficient for the unjust enrichment claim.
Thurston added that Chocmod made irrelevant arguments on this claim, and instead said that it doesn’t sell truffles at a higher price depending on its origin country. Also, it said that they’re identical regardless of their manufacture point.
“Without clear, legally supported, and meaningfully developed arguments responsive to plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment, the court declines ‘to sort through the noodles,’” Thurston wrote.
Concerning a lack of standing or injury, the judge again pointed to arguments made by Chocmod she said don’t advance their case. Instead, the company argued that the Canadian truffles aren’t substandard, unhealthy or different from those made in France. It also argued that the same recipe is used regardless of where the product is made.
Thurston wrote that Chocmod discounted the idea that the country of origin matters to the consumer. A connoisseur might not know where the dessert is from, yet there remains an economic difference in what someone will pay.
“This is precisely what plaintiffs allege — that consumers are willing to pay more for French-made truffles due to their history and tradition, and thus, in reliance on defendant’s front label indicating that the truffles were ‘from France,’” the judge wrote.
The parties’ attorneys didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time.