Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Part 9: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Claim in Food Product Class Action Held Preempted.

Recent decisions have consistently held that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is expressly inapplicable to any written warranty the making or content of which is otherwise governed by federal law. In Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Co., No. 12-cv-03003-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013), the putative class representative alleged he was misled by claims on the tea company’s website and its packaging about various health claims such as antioxidant properties. The Clancy court held that the warranty claim was preempted by the national uniform nutrition labeling provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (“FDCA”).

Clancy followed the 2012 decision in Hairston v. South Beach Beverage Co., No. CV 12-1429-JFW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74279 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2012), which rejected a putative class representative’s claims under California’s consumer fraud laws that references to real fruits in the names of various of Pepsi’s “SoBe” flavored water beverages, such as Strawberry Kiwi Lemonade Lifewater, were misleading because the drink actually contains no fruit or juice. The Hairston court’s rationale in jettisoning the claims was that FDA regulations explicitly permit food manufacturers to use the names and images of real fruits to describe the characterizing flavor of their products even where the products contain none of that fruit or even any other fruit.

Counsel for food industry clients should be mindful of these preemption cases emanating from the lower federal courts in California as their holdings can provide a basis for early dismissals of class claims of violations of the Warranty Act.