Another "natural" claim proceeds for pet food labeled "natural + vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients”

Cobovic v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, No. 24-CV-7730(ARR) (JAM) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2025)

Cobovic alleged that the use of the word “natural” on thefront label pet food was false and misleading under NY law because the productsactually contain “multiple synthetic ingredients.” True, the label includes thephrase “Plus Vitamins, Minerals and other nutrients,” but Cobovic alleged thata reasonable consumer would assume that the vitamins, minerals, and othernutrients are themselves “natural” rather than “synthetic.” She also alleged that“some of the synthetic ingredients in the Products,” such as xanthan gum,cannot be categorized as vitamins or minerals, such that the label is falseeither way.

The court read past cases to come to a consensus that “therelevance of the product’s ingredient list depends on whether or not theallegedly deceptive statement is considered ‘ambiguous.’” Where the plaintiff’sclaim “turns on” the “unavoidable interpretation” of the statement in question,“the reasonable consumer is not expected to consult the ingredient list toascertain the label’s meaning,” but ambiguity requires a reasonable consumer toconsult the ingredient list “in order to clarify his or her understanding ofthe label.” “Consumers who interpret ambiguous statements in an unnatural ordebatable manner do so unreasonably if an ingredient label would set themstraight.”

Plaintiff satisfied that standard. Labelling a product thatcontains synthetic and/or artificial ingredients as “natural” may be false ormisleading, and it need not state that the product is “all natural” or “100%natural” for a reasonable consumer to infer that the product is free fromsynthetic ingredients. Moreover, at this stage, defendants didn’t meaningfullycontest the allegations that the products contain multiple syntheticingredients.

Defendants did argue that the phrase “+ vitamins, minerals,and other nutrients” indicates that things that are not ingredients might notbe natural, rending the label “true and accurate.” But, on the allegations,even assuming that the adjective “natural” does not modify the words “vitamins,minerals, and other nutrients,” at least one ingredient—xanthan gum—appeared tobe neither “natural” nor a “vitamin, mineral, or other nutrient[ ].” Moreover,the ingredient list didn’t definitively resolve the grammatical ambiguityconcerning the application of the adjective “natural.” The problem withconsulting the ingredient list here was that it assumed that a reasonableconsumer can identify which listed ingredients are natural and which are not.But that was not a factual assumption the court was willing to endorse,especially because many “naturally occurring forms of the same vitamins andminerals have similarly difficult-to-pronounce names.” A jury might ultimatelyconclude that the ingredient list would be intelligible to an ordinary shopper,and that “the appearance of ingredients that are obviously synthetic on [theProduct’s] ingredient list undercuts plaintiff’s theory of deception,” but noton a motion to dismiss.