"natural" plausibly meant "all natural"

Cobovic v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., No. 24-CV-7730 (ARR) (JAM), 2025 WL 1726261 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2025)

Cobovic alleged that Mars’s use of the word “natural” on the label of its pet food products violates New York consumer protection law and constitutes a breach of express warranty. The claims survived a motion to dismiss. I’m blogging this mostly because consumer protection caselaw is beginning to develop a distinction between “ambiguous” and “unambiguous” label claims that uses the same words as Lanham Act caselaw, but possibly to different effect. It’s only a matter of time before the streams cross, and we should probably think about whether there is in fact a difference, and if there is, if there is justification for the different ways to slice the salami of meaning.

Anyway, Mars sells a product labeled “NATURAL CAT FOOD + VITAMINS, MINERALS & OTHER NUTRIENTS.” But the products allegedly contain “multiple synthetic ingredients.” Although the label includes the phrase “Plus Vitamins, Minerals and other nutrients,” Cobovic alleged that a reasonable consumer would assume that the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients are themselves “natural” rather than “synthetic.” Anyway, Cobovic 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 was false either way.

Drawing on the “large body of case law” about product packaging that is alleged to be false or misleading “with respect to the product’s actual ingredients,” the court concluded that “the relevance of the product’s ingredient list depends on whether or not the allegedly deceptive statement is considered ‘ambiguous.’” Where the plaintiff’s claim “turns on” the “unavoidable interpretation” of the statement in question, the reasonable consumer is not expected to consult the ingredient list to ascertain the label’s meaning. “But where the statement in question is ambiguous, a reasonable consumer is expected to consult the ingredient list ‘in order to clarify his or her understanding of the label.’” “Consumers who interpret ambiguous statements in an unnatural or debatable manner do so unreasonably if an ingredient label would set them straight.”

First, labelling a product that contains synthetic and/or artificial ingredients as “natural” may be false or misleading; the label need not state that the product is “all natural” or “100% natural” for a reasonable consumer to infer that the product is free from synthetic ingredients. And Mars didn’t meaningfully contest the allegations that the products contained multiple synthetic ingredients. Even if “+ vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients” indicated that not all ingredients are natural, at least one ingredient—xanthan gum—appeared to be neither “natural” nor a “vitamin, mineral, or other nutrient[ ].”

Plus, Mars was arguing that the ingredient list would reveal to consumers the presence of synthetic ingredients. The court was unwilling to assume that “a reasonable consumer can identify which listed ingredients are natural and which are not,” especially because many “naturally occurring forms of the same vitamins and minerals have similarly difficult-to-pronounce names.” A jury would have to decide. (Note that the jury would be resolving any ambiguity, and the court isn’t requiring extrinsic evidence.)