‘Takahashi-Mendoza v. Organic Valley’ Case Summary

Case Name: Takahashi-Mendoza v. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools d/b/a Organic Valley
Index Number: 4:22-cv-05086-JST
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

In July 2022, PETA Foundation lawyers filed a class action lawsuit against organic dairy giant Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, doing business as Organic Valley, on behalf of a California resident who accuses the company of misleading her into buying its products at premium prices because it falsely claims to provide cows with the “highest standards” of animal care. Rather, among other allegations, Organic Valley farmers prematurely separate newborn calves from their mothers and allow calves to be raised in isolation, causing both significant short- and long-term harm.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant’s conduct violates both California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), including because these practices don’t comport with established “highest standards” of animal care “above and beyond other standards”—including the provision of “social” settings—which the defendant touts on its labels but instead renders them false and misleading to reasonable consumers such as the plaintiff. For example, the lawsuit cites numerous studies showing that the public roundly disapproves of such false labeling, describing it as “unethical,” “inhumane,” “cruel,” and “totally unacceptable.” Among other things, the complaint seeks to have the defendant be “enjoined from depriving calves of adequate milk, housing calves in isolation, and separating baby cows and their mothers prior to natural weaning.”

The Court Denies Organic Valley’s Motion to Dismiss

Organic Valley moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that reasonable consumers wouldn’t interpret the label statements in the same manner as the plaintiff, that its label statements were non-actionable puffery, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring her claims and is not entitled to injunctive relief.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Organic Valley’s motion. In a first-of-its-kind decision, Judge Jon S. Tigar held that a reasonable consumer could find Organic Valley’s carton labels “misleading because consumers could plausibly expect that such practices would not include the early separation of mother and calf.”

The opinion went on to explain that such labels represent “measurable, objective claims” and aren’t non-actionable puffery. The judge also allowed claims about Organic Valley’s alleged housing of calves by themselves in isolated hutches without vital socialization to move forward. Finally, the court held that the plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently plead that she has sustained an economic injury for the purposes of statutory standing under the CLRA and the UCL and that the plaintiff’s allegations are enough at this stage for Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.

This case is currently in the discovery phase.