A Florida woman is suing Kraft Heinz for US$5 million for false advertising. The reason ? The preparation time for a macaroni product to be reheated in the microwave which exceeds the 3 and a half minutes promised by the American giant. While this type of class action is common among our neighbors to the south, it is rather rare in Canada.
The Kraft Company markets its Velveeta Shells & Cheese cups as “ready in 3.5 minutes”. A kind of bait to encourage consumers to buy the product, judge Amanda Ramirez.
The American maintains that the “3 and a half minutes” in question represents only the cooking time in the microwave. The entire preparation process is actually longer. Indeed, the instructions decline four different steps: the opening of the sachet of cheese sauce, the addition of water, the cooking in the microwave, the incorporation of the contents of the sachet. Finally, wait for the sauce to thicken.
“The statement of ‘ready in 3½ minutes’ is false and misleading because the product takes more than 3 and a half minutes to be prepared for consumption”, can we read in the class action, a 15-page document filed before the Miami court on November 18.
The products retail for around $10.99 for eight 2.39-ounce macaroni cups. Mme Ramirez and other affected consumers “would not have purchased the product or paid as much had the true facts been known, thereby suffering damages,” the legal team argues.
The suit further indicates that Mr.me Ramirez can no longer trust the labeling and marketing of similar products, as she is no longer certain that “those statements are true”. In other words, Kraft would have damaged consumer confidence.
$5 million
The lawsuit seeks more than $5 million in damages and covers consumers in about 10 states who purchased the mac and cheese products. The lawsuit is also seeking punitive damages from Kraft Heinz Foods Company and asking that it cease “its misleading advertising” as well as “initiate a corrective advertising campaign,” according to court documents.
In a statement provided to NPR, the Kraft Heinz Company called the lawsuit “frivolous,” saying it “will strongly defend itself against the allegations in the complaint,” the outlet reports.
One of the attorneys on Ramirez’s legal team Will Wright told NPR via email that while he’s received some criticism about the case, “misleading advertising is misleading advertising.”
“My firm also represents clients in cases that most would describe as more compelling (arsenic in baby food, etc.), but we don’t think companies should get a free pass for all false advertising. Consumers deserve better. »
Explosion of food lawsuits
This kind of lawsuit has become commonplace in the United States. Moreover, one of the members of the legal team of Mme Ramirez is Spencer Sheehan, a New York-based attorney known for his food marketing lawsuits.
In recent years, Sheehan has filed hundreds of lawsuits over misleading claims, like dairy-free chocolate fudge snacks and vanilla knockoffs.
As NPR reported, Sheehan files about three such complaints a week, and “its proliferation has almost single-handedly caused an all-time spike in the number of class action lawsuits against food and beverage companies — up more than 1000% since 2008”.
What about in Canada?
These kinds of stories are much rarer in Canada. Lawyer François-David Bernier explains that it would have been unlikely that this type of case would have ended up in Canadian courts.
“Here, to be compensated, there really has to be damage. For example, you have been ill, or you have had an accident that caused paralysis. This means that there are a lot fewer lawsuits, ”he summarizes.
“In the United States, even if there has been no damage, the courts can punish companies so as to set an example for others. And sometimes it goes very far, it’s quite spectacular. Whereas in Canada it’s the opposite, we don’t set the example enough. Judges are very conservative, sometimes too much. »
The way a company can promote its products is regulated by consumer protection law. Article 219 states that ” [a]No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatsoever, make a false or misleading representation to a consumer. »
According to the Consumer Protection Office, “an advertisement concerning a good or a service must not cause confusion. It must be clear, readable and understandable. An advertisement giving incomplete information could constitute a false or misleading representation, or overlook an important fact. This is prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act. “, can we read on their website. It is also “prohibited to make false statements or false promises about the good or service you offer”.
In a famous case in Quebec superior court in 2009, a woman filed a motion for a class action lawsuit against Danone. Mme Sonego alleged that the company willfully misrepresented the health benefits of probiotic yogurts.
But the fact remains that these prosecutions are rarer. However, abusive marketing in food does exist in Quebec and Canada, as documented last March by journalist Sarah R. Champagne.
“I think we could do more to protect Canadian consumers,” concludes François-David Bernier.