A putative class motion grievance filed within the Southern District of Iowa accuses Past Meat, Inc. of misrepresenting the protein high quality in 9 merchandise in violation of state client fraud acts, the Magnuson-Moss Guarantee Act, and different statutes.
Defendant Past Meat manufactures and markets Past Meat merchandise, that are plant-based meat substitutes, the grievance says. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant miscalculated and overstated the protein content material of 9 separate Past Meat merchandise on their labeling.
Additional, Past Meat allegedly misrepresents the standard of protein and “misleads customers into believing that the Merchandise present equal dietary advantages to that present in conventional meat-based merchandise.”
The grievance asserts that Past Meat has engaged within the aforementioned misconduct in an effort to mislead customers into “believing that they [consumers] stand to learn from the Product’s state protein content material.” False and deceptive claims or statements are made not solely on the product’s labeling, but additionally on the defendant’s web site and their promotional and advertising supplies.
The plaintiffs conclude that because of the “false, fraudulent, unfair, misleading, and deceptive practices,” they’ve been injured by the defendant. The grievance cites violations of state client fraud acts and the Magnuson-Moss Guarantee Act, breach of categorical guarantee, breach of implied guarantee, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are looking for class certification, a trial by jury, favorable judgment on every rely, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment curiosity, restitution, financial aid, injunctive aid, and litigation charges.
The plaintiffs are represented within the litigation by Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC and Fegan Scott LLC.