In Davis v Ricola USA, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-3071 (USDC CD IL Sept. 26, 2024), the Central Illinois District Court concluded that the plaintiff suffered no injury and thus lacks standing. Accordingly, it dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At issue in the case was Ricola’s marketing that its lozenges are “Made With Swiss Alpine Herbs.” Plaintiff Lacie Davis alleged consumers paid more for Ricola products than they would have, if they had known the key cough-suppressant ingredient is menthol. But, Illinois federal judge Colleen Lawless ruled that the menthol in Ricolas is indeed herbal, something Ricola disclosed in earlier filings.
The Court noted, “[t]o the extent that Plaintiff suggests she and other consumers were deceived by paying premium prices for synthetic menthol or for a product that did not include Swiss Alpine herbs, the undisputed evidence establishes that the active ingredient is in fact herbal. The record establishes that Plaintiff paid for and received a cough suppressant and oral anesthetic with an active herbal ingredient. Therefore, even when the evidence and all reasonable inferences are viewed in favor of Plaintiff, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not shown that she suffered any cognizable injury to support Article III standing. Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Davis v. Ricola U.S., 22-cv-3071, 6-7 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 26, 2024)
A determination that plaintiff lacks standing means that the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Judge granted Ricola’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and without leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s counsel is New York class action attorney Spencer Sheehan, who had previously challenged the strawberry flavoring in Pop-Tarts and the cheese in Bagel Bites, among other products. Here, he is now facing a motion by Ricola Ricola’s seeking $60,000 for attorney’s fees incurred fighting the lawsuit after he was allegedly informed it had no merit.