Photo of Cort Lannin

Cortlin Lannin is a litigator who defends clients in high-stakes complex matters, specializing in class action cases implicating consumer protection and competition claims. He approaches his matters with efficiency and creativity, developing thoughtful strategies to resolve cases and investigations early and on favorable terms.

On behalf of a range of clients in the food, beverage, and consumer packaged goods industries, Cort has navigated pre-complaint disputes and defended multiple class actions implicating deceptive and false advertising practices under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and other states’ false advertising and unfair competition laws. Cort also has a depth of experience with competition matters, having represented clients in civil class action litigation, non-public governmental investigations of both the civil and criminal variety, and internal investigations. He has had a lead role in cases and investigations implicating the high tech industry, alleged “no-poach” agreements, and price-fixing and similar cartel conduct. He is also a leader in the antitrust bar and the recent chair of the Antitrust Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Cort is a co-chair of Covington’s LGBT+ Affinity Group and is deeply involved in the firm’s efforts to recruit, mentor, and promote diverse attorneys, including LGBT+ attorneys.

Prior to joining Covington, Cort was a national political consultant who specialized in polling and focus group research. He leverages this research background in his litigation practice, particularly in defending consumer cases.

Courts in the Northern District of California continue to turn away lawsuits alleging that food and beverage companies must adjust protein content claims to account for protein digestibility.  In Brown v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc., 2022 WL 717816 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2022), Judge Gilliam observed that recent FDA guidance reaffirms that companies may

The Southern District of California recently declined to certify a class based on plaintiffs’ failure to offer class wide proof of deception and materiality.  In Gross et al. v. Vilore Foods Company, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that Kern fruit juice products were deceptively labeled as “100% Natural” or made with whole fruit when the drinks in fact contained artificial ingredients.  Plaintiffs brought claims under various California laws, including the UCL, CLRA, and FAL.  To certify a class, plaintiffs were required to offer common proof both that the challenged representations were deceptive or misleading to a reasonable consumer; and that the challenged representations were material, meaning a reasonable person would attach importance to the representations that Kern’s fruit juice is “100% natural” or made with whole fruit.  The court held that plaintiffs satisfied neither burden.

First, as to deception, the only evidence Plaintiffs cited was their expert’s report.  Plaintiffs’ expert purported to assess the importance consumers placed on certain product attributes, and how claims such as “artificially flavored” affected their willingness to pay for a product.  Plaintiffs’ expert concluded that consumers were willing to pay approximately 29% more for a Kern product that did not disclose its use of artificial flavors, and approximately 30% less for a product disclosing that it contained artificial flavors.  The court found this evidence insufficient because consumers’ willingness to pay more or less for a product said nothing about whether the labels at issue would lead consumers to believe that the products did not contain artificial flavors, or contained only natural flavors.  As a result, the court held that Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion could not constitute common proof of deception.

Continue Reading Consumer Survey Did Not Constitute Common Proof of Deception or Materiality

As discussed in our recent post, a court in the Northern District of California recently dismissed a complaint against Kashi involving its front-of-pack protein content claims.  See Nacarino v. Kashi Co., No. 21-CV-07036-VC, 2022 WL 390815, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022).  That decision confirmed that food manufacturers may use the “nitrogen method” to calculate protein content claims made outside the Nutrition Facts Label and that plaintiffs’ theory that manufacturers must adjust such claims to reflect protein digestibility is preempted.  Judge Seeborg, also of the Northern District of California, followed in the footsteps of the Kashi court on February 15 by dismissing with prejudice a virtually identical case against KIND.  See Chong v. KIND LLC, No. 21-CV-04528-RS, 2022 WL 464149 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2022).

Continue Reading Second Court Upholds Industry-Standard Method for Calculating Front-of-Pack Protein Content Claims

Background

Many food companies now make quantitative protein content claims on the front of pack or elsewhere on their product labels outside the Nutrition Facts Label (NFL), such as the example from a recent case below:  

FDA regulations direct manufacturers to use the “nitrogen method”—which generally calculates protein content by multiplying the nitrogen content of the food by 6.25—when calculating the amount of protein reported inside the NFL.  Companies have generally used the same method for protein claims made elsewhere on the label, i.e., outside the NFL.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Court Upholds Industry-Standard Method for Calculating Front-of-Pack Protein Content Claims