Hollins v. Walmart, Inc.

“‘[A] state-law misbranding claim’ that would allow a ‘state to impose requirements . . . different from those permitted under the [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act] . . . is preempted.’” Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp, 907 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 2018).

Hollins filed a consumer class action complaint against Walmart, asserting that Walmart’s product, Spring Valley Glucosamine Sulfate, contained glucosamine hydrochloride and was incorrectly labeled.  Hollins appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Walmart, asserting the court erred in holding Walmart met its burden of proving her claims were preempted as a matter of law.  She argued that under 21 U.S.C. § 343(q), Walmart mislabeled a blend of glucosamine sulfate and potassium chloride as glucosamine sulfate because it failed to comply with the regulatory requirement that dietary supplements are described “[by] their common or usual name” as defined in 21 C.F.R. § 101.36(b)(3)(i).  “‘[A] state-law misbranding claim’ that would allow a ‘state to impose requirements . . . different from those permitted under the [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act]. . . is preempted.’” Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp, 907 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 2018).  The Court found that Walmart complied with federal regulations after hearing expert testimony that the product was labeled according to its “common or usual name” under § 101.36(b)(3)(i). Hollins’s proposed state rule was contrary to the dictates of the federal rule.  Thus, the district court was correct to grant Walmart’s motion for summary judgment.  AFFIRMED.