This case was last updated from PACER on 10/13/2021 at 05:35:45 (UTC).

White v. The Kroger Co. et al

Case Summary

On October 12, 2021, Phillip White (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Katherine Anne Bruce of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., filed a personal property fraud lawsuit against The Kroger Company (“Kroger”), and Fruit Of The Earth, Inc. (“FOTE”) (collectively “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages along with interest, disgorgement, and costs for allegedly causing Plaintiff and other customers to falsely believe, by deceptive labeling and misrepresentations, that its products are safe and not harmful. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “To obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the billion-dollar sunscreen market, Defendant is exposing consumers and the environment to harmful chemical active ingredients in their sunscreens by falsely labeling them as “REEF FRIENDLY.” Defendant has reaped millions of dollars through this fraudulent scheme based on a calculated business decision to put profits over people and the environment. Specifically, Defendant deceptively labels certain of its Kroger® brand sun care Products as “REEF FRIENDLY” deliberately leading reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to believe that the Products only contain ingredients that are reef-safe and otherwise cannot harm reefs, including the coral reefs and marine life that inhabits or depends on them (hereinafter, “Reef Friendly Representation,” “False Advertising Claim” and/or “Challenged Representation”).” 

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “The Challenged Representation has misled reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, into believing that the Products only contain ingredients that are reef-safe or otherwise cannot harm reefs, including the coral reefs and the marine life that inhabits or depends on them. However, contrary to this labeling, the Products actually contain Harmful Ingredients (including avobenzone, homoslate, octisalate, and/or octocrylene), which are chemical ingredients that are not safe for reefs because they can harm and/or kill reefs, including the coral reefs and the marine life that inhabits or depends on them. Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the Products, Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire for sunscreens that are friendly to or safe for reefs (coral reefs and marine life and related ecosystems that inhabit or depend on coral reefs), while reaping the financial benefits of using less desirable, harmful, and/or less costly chemicals in the Products. Defendant has done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as well as Defendant’s lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendant maintains an unfair competitive advantage.” 

 

Plaintiff lists out five claims for relief. The first claim is for the violation of unfair competition law. The second claim is for the violation of false advertising law. The third claim is for the violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The fourth claim is for the breach of warranty and the fifth claim is for unjust enrichment.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for an order certifying this action as a class action, and declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes and laws referenced herein. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for an order requiring Defendant to immediately cease and desist from selling and requiring Defendant to engage in an affirmative advertising campaign to dispel the public misperception of the Products resulting from Defendant’s unlawful conduct. Plaintiff further requested for restitution, disgorgement, and damages along with attorneys’ fees, costs, pre and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:21-CV-08004

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Phillip White

Defendants

The Kroger Co.

Fruit of the Earth, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Katherine Anne Bruce

Attorney at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway

Malibu, CA 90265

 

Court Documents

2 #1

Proposed Summons as to Defendant The Kroger Co.

#2

(#2) Proposed Summons. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons as to Defendant The Kroger Co.)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Exhibit 1

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against Fruit of the Earth, Inc., The Kroger Co. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16490500.). Filed byPhillip White. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons as to Defendant The Kroger Co.)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Fruit of the Earth, Inc., The Kroger Co. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16490500.). Filed byPhillip White. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where The Kroger Co is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Katherine A Bruce