Posted February 15, 2016

A federal judge in California recently rejected a lawsuit that alleged Chipotle deceived consumers by advertising its menu as GMO-free, concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a specific claim against the fast-food chain.

In Colleen Gallagher v. Chiptle Mexican Grill, Inc., Chipotle avoided a proposed class action claiming the restaurant chain falsely advertised its menu as free of genetically modified ingredients. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims were not specific and did not hold to a consistent definition of “GMO.”

The plaintiff contended that Chipotle’s GMO claims were false or misleading because the fast-food chain sells meat and dairy products derived from animals that consume genetically modified food and because Chipotle sells third-party soft drinks containing GMOs.

Per her complaint, Gallagher defined “GMO” as “any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.” The court noted that the plaintiff’s complaint recognized that the term “organic” is used to describe “non-GMO meat and dairy products sourced from animals that did not consume genetically modified feed.”

Critically, however, the court determined that the plaintiff never alleged in her complaint that Chipotle represented its ingredients as “organic” or explained “why a reasonable consumer would interpret “non-GMO” to mean the same thing as “organic.” Furthermore, the plaintiff never alleged that she actually purchased any food items containing GMOs and therefore, did not suffer an injury-in-fact.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the suit, but gave the plaintiff leave to file an updated version clarifying why reasonable consumers would likely be deceived by Chipotle’s GMO claims.

(Image courtesy pixabay.com)