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 the front label pet food was false and misleading under NY law because the products actually contain “multiple synthetic ingredients.” True, the label includes the phrase “Plus Vitamins, Minerals and other nutrients,” but Cobovic alleged that a reasonable consumer would assume that the vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients 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 false either way.

The court read past cases to come to a consensus 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 ambiguity requires a reasonable consumer 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.”

Plaintiff satisfied that standard. Labelling a product that contains synthetic and/or artificial ingredients as “natural” may be false or misleading, 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 from synthetic ingredients. Moreover, at this stage, defendants didn’t meaningfully contest the allegations that the products contain multiple synthetic ingredients.

Defendants did argue that the phrase “+ vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients” indicates that things that are not ingredients might not be 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 to be neither “natural” nor a “vitamin, mineral, or other nutrient[ ].” Moreover, the ingredient list didn’t definitively resolve the grammatical ambiguity concerning the application of the adjective “natural.” The problem with consulting the ingredient list here was that it assumed that a reasonable consumer 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 and minerals have similarly difficult-to-pronounce names.” A jury might ultimately conclude that the ingredient list would be intelligible to an ordinary shopper, and that “the appearance of ingredients that are obviously synthetic on [the Product’s] ingredient list undercuts plaintiff’s theory of deception,” but not on a motion to dismiss.