In Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co, No. 24-3387, 2025 WL 2613489 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action regarding allegedly contaminated peanut butter because Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims.
In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced an investigation into a salmonella outbreak linked to certain peanut butter products sold by the company. In response, the company voluntarily recalled several peanut butter product lines, and the FDA instructed consumers to discard the recalled products. In May 2022, Plaintiffs brought a putative class action, claiming they each bought peanut butter from the recalled product lines and were unable to consume the purchased peanut butter. In April 2024, the federal district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing because the allegations did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
The Sixth Circuit agreed that Plaintiffs failed in their burden to plausibly claim an injury-in-fact, and therefore they had no standing to bring their claims. The Court first analyzed Plaintiffs’ argument that they were sold contaminated peanut butter, and that this contamination deprived them of the benefit of their bargain and enhanced their risk of salmonella infection. The Court first acknowledged that overpaying for a defective product and having an increased risk of illness are both cognizable injuries under circuit precedent. However, Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their potential injuries and instead relied almost entirely on conclusory allegations regarding product contamination. Plaintiffs failed to offer any allegations which would suggest widespread or extensive contamination, such as allegations regarding sampling, testing, or pertinent data. There were also no allegations about the specific peanut butter which each Plaintiff purchased. Absent such allegations indicating the nature or extent of the contamination, the Sixth Circuit found that purchasing a product covered by a product recall alone was not sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ secondary argument that even if the peanut butter were not contaminated, it was still packaged in unsanitary conditions and therefore “adulterated.” Plaintiffs argued that by selling them food that was allegedly prepared in unsanitary conditions, Defendant denied them the benefit of their bargain. However, the Sixth Circuit refused to consider this argument because Plaintiffs had not raised it before the district court, and it was therefore waived.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision underscores that product recalls alone are not enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing, absent more specific allegations regarding the widespread nature of the defect or how Plaintiffs were specifically injured.