A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the alleged inclusion of artificial citric acid in a product rendered the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” representation on the front label false and/or misleading. Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2024 WL 4766319 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024).
The court first held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the citric acid was artificial. Plaintiffs’ complaint cited articles explaining, for example, “the history of citric acid and how the artificial variety derived from Aspergillus niger has overtaken the natural variety.” The court found that such allegations provided “a sufficient connection between the industry practice of using artificial citric acid” and the defendant’s alleged practices. The court also distinguished Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2024 WL 1158476 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024), which we previously covered here. The court in Valencia dismissed plaintiff’s claims in part because that plaintiff did not allege how “artificial” citric acid derived from Aspergillus niger is chemically different from “natural” citric acid derived from fruits. In this case, however, the court concluded plaintiffs had so alleged.
The court then held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the citric acid in the product functioned as a preservative. The court credited plaintiffs’ citation of scholarly articles describing citric acid’s role in preserving food, as well as FDA guidance that describes citric acid as a preservative. This decision marks a deviation from a recent run of cases in other courts that have dismissed citric and malic acid complaints, including on some of the same grounds that were asserted here. In addition to Valencia, we have covered those cases here and here.