In Iglesia v. Tootsie Roll Industries LLC, No. 20-cv-18751 (USDC, D NJ. October 18, 2021), the Disctrict Court dismissed plaintiff’s slack-fill class action claims against the manufacturer of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies products. Plaintiff Iglesia purchased Junior Mints in 2017 and claimed that the boxes of the challenged products were about forty-five percent empty. He brought suit under a litany of alleged violations related to this area of empty packaging, called slack-fill. On October 18, the court dismissed each of Iglesia’s claims, holding that the complaint was not pleaded with adequate particularity, including the date or exact location of the alleged purchase.
The Court had several reasons to dismiss the complaint, including the fact that although Iglesia had standing to bring claims for products he purchased (Junior Mints), he lacked standing to pursue claims regarding products he did not purchase (Sugar Babies).
In addition, the challenged labeling was found not misleading under the reasonable consumer standard: The Court noted that the products were sold by weight, not volume, so the challenged net weight statement was not misleading, even if the claims were plead with particularity. Specifically, the labeling challenge failed under the reasonable consumer standard as the net weight of the products was displayed on the front of the packaging in easily discernable font.
Finally, the District Judge determined that the size of the product’s packaging did not create an express warranty: Applying New Jersey law, the Court held that the size of the product’s boxes did not create an express warranty, writing “an express warranty based on the size of the box alone is, in essence, an implied express warranty, which the law does not permit.”