Paul Betancourt: Predatory trial lawyers put crunch on food businesses

Trial lawyers looking to make a quick buck at the expense of productive businesses have found a good business model California: find a successful food product and sue its manufacturer.

The preferred vehicle for these lawyers is the class-action lawsuit, in which consumers – who are purportedly the “victims” in these cases – receive coupons or mere pennies while lawyers walk away with millions of dollars.

The recent revelation that the manufacturers of almond milk have been targeted by a new lawsuit is just one more indication that our lawsuit system benefits lawyers more than ordinary people and that reform is needed. The primary complaint in this lawsuit is that there are not enough almonds in almond milk, and that this somehow has hurt consumers. This line of reasoning fails to take into account that all ingredients and nutritional information are printed on product packaging, and that there is no evidence of any consumer experiencing harm.

Look at the following products: Nutella, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Chobani yogurt, Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats, and Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries. What do they all have in common?

All have been the targets of class-action lawsuits. In recent years, California has seen a huge number of preposterous class-action lawsuits from attorneys eager to profit from our lawsuit system. So many lawsuits have been filed here that the state has become known nationally as the “food court.”

This trend is part of a broader movement towards increased litigation that benefits lawyers at the expense of everyone else. Just look at the recent explosion of lawsuits against small businesses alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Proposition 65. Where I live in the Valley, these lawsuits have forced some small businesses to lay off workers and others to shut down completely. While the economically booming coastal areas may be able to afford this kind of lawsuit abuse against employers, the inland areas of California simply cannot.

Other enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers have found a way to sue small businesses under the Private Attorney General Act for minor paycheck stub mistakes, such as not listing the complete employer’s name or address on pay stubs. One small Central California business was hit with one of these lawsuits and settled for $1.5 million. The company is now planning to move out of California – taking jobs with it.

Trivial lawsuits like this do nothing for any of us except the trial lawyers.

Of course, we want to protect consumers and employees. But, the continued abuse of the legal system with these pointless lawsuits wastes money, increases the cynicism of citizens and makes California a less friendly place for new businesses.

What company in their right mind would invest in California knowing it could be attacked by these types of lawsuits?

As a family farmer, I know that my business can be targeted by enterprising attorneys if I fill out regulatory forms improperly. The resulting lawsuit will result in handsome profits for them, and could force me to reduce my production or delay expansion, costing jobs either way.

The lawsuit arguing over the content of almond milk should be a wake-up call for California’s elected leaders. It is far past time for our state to rein in the abuse of our lawsuit system that is holding back economic growth and costing jobs.

This story was originally published September 30, 2015 at 8:47 AM with the headline "Paul Betancourt: Predatory trial lawyers put crunch on food businesses."