When consumers see the American Heart Association’s Heart Check Mark on a can of StarKist tuna, the complaint for this class action says, they are likely to believe that the tuna is healthier than another brand without the mark. But the complaint alleges that StarKist Co.’s use of the mark is deceptive, because the it does not disclose that the Heart Check Mark is a paid endorsement.
The class for this action is all persons who bought StarKist products with labels or packaging that included the American Heart Association (AHA) Heart Check Mark in New York State.
The AHA is aware that their endorsement holds value. The complaint quotes the AHA’s promotional materials as saying, “The American Heart Associate heart-check mark increases product sales because seeing the mark on a package assures shoppers they are making a smart choice.” According to the materials, controlled studies confirm this; the mark suggests that an “independent” group has certified the product.
The complaint claims that the use of the heart check mark constitutes a health claim. It quotes federal law as saying that a health claim is any claim on a label “that expressly or by implication, including ‘third party’ references, written statements…, symbols (e.g., a heart symbol), or vignettes, characterizes the relationship of any substance to a disease or health-related condition.”
It’s legal for StarKist to pay for the use of the mark. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says so in its “Final Rule: Food Labeling; General Requirements for Health Claims for Food.” But the FDA rules also say that “a statement should be included in close proximity to the claim, informing consumers that the organization or individual was compensated for the endorsement.”
It adds, “Failure to divulge this information on a label that bears a paid endorsement would cause the product to be misbranded…”
According to the complaint, many StarKist products bear the AHA Heart Check Mark but do not divulge that it’s a paid endorsement:
- StarKist Alaskan Pink Salmon
- StarKist Alaskan Pink Salmon Reduced Sodium
- StarKist Boneless Skinless Pink Salmon
- StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water
- StarKist Chunk White Albacore Tuna in Water
- StarKist Low Sodium Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water
- StarKist Selects Chunk Light Tuna in Water
- StarKist Selects Low Sodium Chunk Light Yellowfin Tuna in Water
- StarKist Selects Solid Light Yellowfin Tuna in Water
- StarKist Selects Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water
- StarKist Selects Very Low Sodium Chunk White Albacore Tuna in Water
- StarKist Solid Light Tuna in Water
- StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water
The complaint claims that StarKist violates New York’s General Business Law and other laws and allows StarKist to unjustly enrich itself.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Consumer
Most Recent Case Event
StarKist Heart Check Mark Paid Endorsement New York Complaint
April 4, 2018
When consumers see the American Heart Association’s Heart Check Mark on a can of StarKist tuna, the complaint for this class action says, they are likely to believe that the tuna is healthier than another brand without the mark. But the complaint alleges that StarKist Co.’s use of the mark is deceptive, because the it does not disclose that the Heart Check Mark is a paid endorsement. According to the complaint, this constitutes misbranding and violates state laws.
starkist_heart-check_mark_complaint.pdfCase Event History
StarKist Heart Check Mark Paid Endorsement New York Complaint
April 4, 2018
When consumers see the American Heart Association’s Heart Check Mark on a can of StarKist tuna, the complaint for this class action says, they are likely to believe that the tuna is healthier than another brand without the mark. But the complaint alleges that StarKist Co.’s use of the mark is deceptive, because the it does not disclose that the Heart Check Mark is a paid endorsement. According to the complaint, this constitutes misbranding and violates state laws.
starkist_heart-check_mark_complaint.pdf