Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

Adam J. Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Adam J. Hunt

Right-to-Repair Laws: The Trend Continues

The Future of Section 230: Protection Against Product Liability Claims?

New Wave of PFAS Legislation Aimed at Consumer Products

CPSC Releases Annual Report on Deaths and Injuries Involving Nursery Products

CPSC Proposes New Safety Rules for Infant Rockers

022 was another record-setting year for data breach class actions. Here’s our take on the key developments and trends we have seen over the past year, as well as what we should watch for in 2023.We count 43 major data breach class actions filed this past year, treating multiple cases filed against a single defendant as one major class action. <a href="#_ftn1" target="_self" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> This continues the upward trend, from 25 in 2020 to 36 in 2021, even though we have narrowed our definition of major cases each year. Of the new cases, four are subject to MDL proceedings, 30 are consolidated or have pending motions to consolidate, and nine are proceeding as individual actions.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230125-year-in-review-data-breach-litigation?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">client alert</a>. <a href="#_ftnref1" target="_self" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> In gathering cases, we defined major data breach litigation as cases in which: 1) the breach impacted at least 200,000 individuals; and 2) multiple actions were filed regarding the same incident. This is a more limited definition than we used in our 2021 year-in-review, when we counted all cases in which multiple actions were filed.

wyatt_matt_blog_150x150.png

wyatt_matt_common_640x280.jpg

wyatt_matt_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

wyatt_matt_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

wyatt_matt_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Matt Wyatt is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s Los Angeles office.
Prior to joining Morrison & Foerster, Matt was a summer associate in the Los Angeles office. He ear

Matt Wyatt

privacy_lock.jpg

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Data Breach Litigation

FTC & Privacy: Will the FTC's Rulemaking Push Result in New Privacy Rules?

privacy lock

2022 was another record-setting year for data breach class actions. Here’s our take on the key developments and trends we have seen over the past year, as well as what we should watch for in 2023.

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Data Breach Litigation

Second in our Privacy Litigation Year in Review series is an overview of cases under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).In 2022, Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) litigation was bustling. Defendants in BIPA cases ranged from pharmacies, insurance companies, and social media platforms to software companies, schools, and airlines. Even with the steady stream of opinions in 2022, key questions about BIPA’s scope remain open for future interpretation.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230118-privacy-litigation-2022-year-in-review?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">client alert</a>.

CCPA and Data Breach Class Action for Leading Software Company

BIPA Class Action Against Gaming and Hospitality Company

TCPA and Other Class Actions for Major Technology Company

Data Breach Class Action for Technology Company

Wiretap Act action against a Major Consumer Electronics Manufacturer

TCPA Class Action Against National Chain

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation

In re Verizon Wireless Data Charges Litigation

cheung_tiffany_blog_150x150.png

cheung_tiffany_common_640x280.jpg

cheung_tiffany_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

cheung_tiffany_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

cheung_tiffany_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

Tiffany Cheung

Clients seek out Tiffany for her successful track record in defending class action claims on behalf of clients in a broad range of industries, including technology, healthcare, and consumer product companies. She represents numerous Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes litigation involving privacy and marketing claims in courts throughout the United States.

230118-privacy-litigation-bipa.jpg

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)

230118-privacy-litigation-bipa

Second in our Privacy Litigation Year in Review series is an overview of cases under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)

2022 brought a new wave of data privacy lawsuits seeking to impose wiretapping liability on website operators and their service providers—just as the dust settled on the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220113-web-analytics-session-reply">first wave</a>. To date, plaintiffs have filed over 120 such lawsuits across nine jurisdictions (California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Washington) seeking to capitalize on statutory damages. California and Pennsylvania are at the focal point of these filings, with recent circuit court decisions reopening the floodgates.  In addition to moving beyond California and Florida, a chief fixture of this second wave has been a focus on live chat recording. While about one-third of these cases are still premised on session replay—the technology at issue in the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220113-web-analytics-session-reply">first wave</a> of these cases—the remaining two‑thirds are premised on the alleged wiretapping of online customer service chat communications.Read the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/230112-2022-year-in-review-wiretapping-litigation">client alert</a>.

patel_purvi_blog_150x150.png

patel_purvi_common_640x280.jpg

patel_purvi_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

patel_purvi_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

patel_purvi_social_600x600.jpg

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles Office. She represents retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy 

Purvi G. Patel

Purvi G. Patel defends retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice defending household names in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.

Purvi Patel

erik_erik_blog_150x150.png

erik_erik_common_640x280.jpg

erik_erik_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

erik_erik_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

erik_erik_social_600x600.jpg

Erik Manukyan is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster's Los Angeles office. Erik is a graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was principal senior editor of the National Security Journal.

Erik Manukyan

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Wiretapping Litigation

2022 brought a new wave of data privacy lawsuits seeking to impose wiretapping liability on website operators and their service providers—just as the dust settled on the first wave. To date, plaintiffs have filed over 120 such lawsuits across nine jurisdictions (California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Washington) seeking to capitalize on statutory damages. 

Privacy Litigation 2022 Year in Review: Wiretapping Litigation

The Supreme Court just agreed to review an important question at the intersection of arbitration law and appellate practice. Its ultimate decision in the case could provide a major boost to defendants seeking to enforce arbitration agreements in circuits (including the Second and Ninth) where they currently operate under a disadvantageous rule.Section 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act permits immediate interlocutory appeal of a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. When a defendant exercises that right, what happens to the underlying district court litigation—does it proceed apace or is it automatically stayed until the appellate court decides whether the dispute should be in court at all? The circuits have long disagreed on that question, and on December 9 the Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer it.Read the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/221213-supreme-court-to-settle-longstanding-split">client alert</a>.

palmore_joseph_blog_150x150.png

palmore_joseph_common_640x280.jpg

palmore_joseph_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

palmore_joseph_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

palmore_joseph_social_600x600.jpg

Joe Palmore co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Chambers USA describes him as “an outstanding oral advocate,” who is “calm, focused, effective and doesn’t back down,” and has “complete command of the facts.” Joe “writes great briefs” (Chambers USA), with one client recounting that “the Court mirrored the language he thoughtfully chose in its ultimate order” (Legal 500).

Joseph R. Palmore

Joseph R. Palmore is co-chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group and Managing Partner for the Washington, D.C. office. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Joe was an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department of Justice and the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Joseph Palmore

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc.jpg

Supreme Court To Settle Longstanding Split Over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeals

High Court Orders Rethink Of $9.7M Award After TransUnion

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc

The Supreme Court just agreed to review an important question at the intersection of arbitration law and appellate practice. Its ultimate decision in the case could provide a major boost to defendants seeking to enforce arbitration agreements in circuits (including the Second and Ninth) where they currently operate under a disadvantageous rule.




















Supreme Court To Settle Longstanding Split Over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeals

For decades, health-conscious consumers have argued about what it really means for a food to be “healthy.” Is dark chocolate “healthy”? How about breakfast cereal, coffee, or fruit gummies? At the same time, class action litigants have seized on ever-evolving and subjective definitions of “healthy,” pursuing claims against food manufacturers based on allegations that consumers were misled by a product’s marketing into believing that the product was more “healthy” than it really is.But as of this week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration might finally have an answer to the age-old question of what “healthy” means. On September 28, 2022, the FDA released its new proposed criteria for when foods can be labelled “healthy.” Under the FDA’s new proposed definition, in order to make a “healthy” claim, a product must:<ul><li>Contain a certain meaningful amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (such as fruit, vegetable, dairy, etc.) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines.</li><li>Adhere to specific limits for certain nutrients, such as saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. The threshold for the limits is based on a percent of the Daily Value (DV) for the nutrient and varies depending on the food and food group.</li></ul>The History of “Healthy”The FDA first defined “healthy” for label claims in 1994, and most recently <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-use-term-healthy-labeling-human-food-products" target="_blank">updated its guidance</a> in 2016, when the agency advised manufacturers that it would allow “healthy” labels on food products that contain at least ten percent of the Daily Value of potassium or vitamin D, or products that have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono- and polyunsaturated fats.Under the FDA’s current definition, a food qualifies for the “healthy” label if it has limited amounts of certain fats, cholesterol, and sodium, and provides at least ten percent of the Daily Value of certain nutrients. Notably, there are no limits on added sugars.Digesting the New Proposed CriteriaThe FDA’s new criteria, announced this week, seeks to reduce added sugar consumption by limiting added sugar in products labeled “healthy” to generally no more than 2.5 grams per serving, but there are exceptions based on the exact category of food product.As part of the FDA’s <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/29/2022-20975/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-definition-of-term-healthy" target="_blank">new proposed definition</a>, foods can be slotted into one of four categories: (1) raw whole fruits and vegetables; (2) individual food products (like plain yogurt or brown rice); (3) combination foods, like mixed products (like granola or yogurt with fruit chunks), main dish products (like frozen entrees intended to be eaten with sides to form a full meal), and meal products (like frozen dinners); and (4) plain water.Raw whole fruits and vegetables and plain water automatically qualify for the “healthy” label.The other categories are judged based on (1) meeting certain nutritional requirements and (2) if the product contains a certain amount of food from at least one of the food groups or subgroups (e.g., fruit, vegetables, grains, dairy, and protein foods) recommended by the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.To understand the FDA’s new proposed criteria, it is important to understand that the FDA measures quantity in “food group equivalents” (FGE). One FGE is based on the FDA’s understanding of how much of that food group a healthy person should consume on a 2,000-calorie daily diet.Mixed Product Requirements“<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-29/pdf/2022-20975.pdf#page=23" target="_blank">Mixed products</a>” are food products that contain small amounts of multiple components. Imagine a trail mix with fruits and nuts, where there are not enough fruits in the package to equal a full FGE’s amount of fruit, and there are also not enough nuts to qualify as a full serving of nuts. Under the FDA’s new proposed rule, a mixed food is “healthy” if it contains at least half an FGE each of two different food groups. So the trail mix would qualify for the “healthy” label if it has half an FGE’s worth of nuts per serving (1/2 ounce-equivalent of nuts) and half an FGE’s worth of fruit per serving (1/4 cup-equivalent of fruit). The trail mix would not qualify as “healthy” if it had the same amount of nuts but a miniscule amount of fruit, because it would then be a mixed product with half an FGE’s worth of only one food group, not the required two.Main Dish and Complete Meal Product RequirementsUnder the FDA’s new proposed rule, “<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-29/pdf/2022-20975.pdf#page=25" target="_blank">Main dish products</a>” must contain at least one full FGE’s worth of two different food groups per labelled serving. For example, a vegetarian lasagna containing a ½ cup-equivalent of mixed vegetables per serving (one vegetable FGE) and ¾ ounce-equivalent of whole grains per serving (one whole-grain FGE) would qualify as “healthy.”Similarly, under the FDA’s new proposed rule, “<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-29/pdf/2022-20975.pdf#page=26" target="_blank">Complete meal products</a>” must contain at least one full FGE of three different food groups per labelled serving. A frozen salmon dinner would meet the “healthy” criteria if it contains at least one FGE each of salmon, green beans, and brown rice. That would be a large enough amount of three different food groups: seafood (protein food), vegetables, and whole grains.Combination foods have yet <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-29/pdf/2022-20975.pdf#page=24" target="_blank">further complexities</a> under the FDA’s new proposed rule. For example, beans, peas, and lentils may be counted as either a protein or as a vegetable in a combination food.One Day You’re Healthy, the Next Day You’re NotUnder the FDA’s new proposed definition, some foods that currently qualify as “healthy” will no longer meet the criteria to use the label. These products include white bread, some yogurts, and cereals that exceed the FDA’s new limits on added sugar per serving.But other products that currently fail to qualify as “healthy” would qualify under the FDA’s new proposed definition. These products include avocados, nuts and seeds, higher-fat fish such as salmon, water, and certain oils (such as oil-based spreads or dressings). Water previously failed to qualify as healthy because it did not meet the existing nutrient-related criteria—another oversight that the FDA is seeking to close with this update.Recordkeeping RequirementsWhile the new contours of “healthy” will get all of the media (and potentially litigation) attention in coming months, the FDA’s proposed new definition of “healthy” comes with <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-09-29/pdf/2022-20975.pdf#page=27">additional recordkeeping requirements</a> that are likely to be important to food manufacturers. Manufacturers that want to use the “healthy” label on their products may be required to keep records proving their products meet the FDA’s requirements. The FDA may require companies to maintain records such as recipes or formulations, batch records, or certificates of analysis from ingredient suppliers.Exact recordkeeping requirements depend on the type of food product, and if the ingredient statement on the product’s information panel makes it facially apparent that the product meets the “healthy” requirements. Manufacturers subject to the FDA’s new proposed definition would be required to keep records for a period of two years after rolling out the product, and would be required to make the records available to the FDA for examination or copying upon request.The Future of “Healthy”As part of its effort to improve the nation’s health, the FDA is also developing a front-of-package symbol indicating that a product meets the FDA’s “healthy” criteria. The FDA understands that consumers are busier than ever and wants to enable consumers to make healthy decisions more easily. The FDA is <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/29/2022-20975/food-labeling-nutrient-content-claims-definition-of-term-healthy" target="_blank">accepting</a> public comment on its proposed rule for “healthy” labeling until December 28, 2022.Morrison & Foerster will continue to monitor the FDA’s rulemaking on “healthy” claims and is available to provide legal guidance to its clients on regulatory and class action litigation matters pertaining to the “healthy” label.

Water Is In, White Bread Is Out: “Healthy” Gets a New Look in 2023

Nature's Path Foods