Last January, I wrote about one plaintiff’s unsuccessful attempt to pursue claims against the maker of Fancy Feast cat food for failure to disclose the alleged use of forced labor.  Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170608 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015).  Readers may recall that the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act requires certain large retailers and manufacturers doing business in California to disclose their “efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from its direct supply chain for tangible goods offered for sale”.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43.  Since Barber, plaintiffs have seen their claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750-1784), and False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500-17509) dismissed with prejudice in the following cases:

Dana v. Hershey Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41594 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016);

McCoy v. Nestle United States, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41601 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016);

Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19268 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016);

Wirth v. Mars Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14552 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016); and

De Rosa v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5497 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2016) .

To some, this might not be surprising given that the legislature explicitly and unambiguously provided that “The exclusive remedy for a violation of this section shall be an action brought by the Attorney General for injunctive relief.”  Cal. Civ. Code 1714.43(d).  I don’t expect the plaintiffs’ bar to relent and we most likely will ultimately hear from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the subject.