Golden State Today

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the case of Gulkarov v. Plum, PBC, which alleges that Plum failed to disclose trace amounts of heavy metals and perchlorate in its baby food products. The brief, submitted to the Ninth Circuit, supports consumers' rights to seek remedy under California’s consumer protection laws and advocates for bringing the issue before the California Supreme Court.

“California is home to some of the most robust consumer protections nationwide and consumers deserve full protection under those laws. However, current lack of clarity inhibits effective enforcement of these laws and creates confusion,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We all understand that an omission can be as deceptive and harmful as an affirmative lie — the two should be treated the same when it comes to informing consumers about risks posed by the products they buy. I urge the Supreme Court to weigh in and apply Unfair Competition Law standards broadly to protect consumers from unfair and fraudulent business practices.”

The lawsuit claims that Plum violated state consumer laws including California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law by not disclosing that their baby food contained trace amounts of heavy metals like lead, as well as perchlorate. Exposure to lead poses significant health risks, particularly for children.

The district court previously ruled in favor of Plum on grounds that plaintiffs did not meet prerequisites for a viable consumer protection claim based on omissions rather than misrepresentations. Attorney General Bonta's brief requests that the Ninth Circuit seek clarification from the California Supreme Court on standards for omissions liability in consumer deception claims. Historically, deceptive omissions have not been treated differently from deceptive statements under UCL.

Attorney General Bonta continues his advocacy for transparency in consumer protection cases. Earlier this year, he filed briefs in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP concerning emergency room billing practices, and Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., arguing against limiting UCL action timeframes due to insurance policy claims periods.

A copy of Attorney General Bonta's brief is available online.