In Wertmeyer v. Walmart, Inc., No. 24-2001 (July 1, 2025) N.D. Ill., Eastern Div. (ROVNER), Plaintiff alleged that defendant defrauded him when it sold a product advertised as “raw honey” when it was not actually raw and filed a lawsuit alleging various claims under for fraudulent misrepresentation and under state consumer fraud law. Plaintiff Wertmeyer The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to support any of his claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceptive practices. Wertmeyer relied upon a single “data point” to support his claim that the honey was not raw, the levels of a compound called HMF. Nut, the Amended Complaint itself noted other factors impacting HMF levels. The Appellate Court noted: “Wertymer has pled himself out of court by indicating directly in his complaint competing theories for the allegedly high HMF values—heat or storage. See R. 26 at 6, ¶28. According to Wertymer’s complaint, either heat or storage caused the high HMF value, and only one states a claim for fraud or deception. Imagine a complaint for a car accident in which the plaintiff claims that either the local milk delivery truck cut her off, causing her to swerve into a tree, or she fell asleep at the wheel. No reasonable judge would allow this plaintiff to subject the milk delivery truck driver to trial for negligence when the complaint itself supplies an alternative explanation for the crash that exculpates the defendant.” The Seventh Circuit thus affirmed, explaining that the allegations in the complaint readily supported the conclusion that the honey was properly labeled as raw and that any allegations of damages by the plaintiff were mere conjecture and speculation. (EASTERBROOK and KIRSCH, concurring).
