A federal judge in California recently rejected a lawsuit that alleged
Chipotle deceived consumers by advertising its menu as GMO-free, concluding
that the plaintiff failed to state a specific claim against the fast-food
chain.
In Colleen Gallagher v. Chiptle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
Chipotle avoided a proposed class action claiming the restaurant chain falsely
advertised its menu as free of genetically modified ingredients. The court
found that the plaintiff’s claims were not specific and did not hold to a
consistent definition of “GMO."
The plaintiff contended that Chipotle’s GMO claims were false
or misleading because the fast-food chain sells meat and dairy products derived
from animals that consume genetically modified food and because Chipotle sells
third-party soft drinks containing GMOs.
Per her complaint, Gallagher defined “GMO” as “any
organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering
techniques.” The court noted that the plaintiff’s complaint recognized that the
term “organic” is used to describe "non-GMO meat and dairy products sourced from
animals that did not consume genetically modified feed."
Critically, however, the court determined that the
plaintiff never alleged in her complaint that Chipotle represented its
ingredients as “organic” or explained “why a reasonable consumer would
interpret “non-GMO” to mean the same thing as “organic.” Furthermore, the
plaintiff never alleged that she actually purchased any food items containing
GMOs and therefore, did not suffer an injury-in-fact.
U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the
suit, but gave the plaintiff leave to file an updated version clarifying why
reasonable consumers would likely be deceived by Chipotle’s GMO claims.
(Image courtesy pixabay.com)
