Federal Judge Robert S. Huie
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge won’t let Boar’s Head slice off an entire lawsuit alleging the deli meat purveyor falsely advertised the cleanliness and quality of its processing facilities.
Four California women sued Boar’s Head Provisions Company in San Diego County Superior Court in February 2025. Boar’s Head removed the matter to federal court and eventually asked U.S. District Judge Robert Huie to dismiss the second amended complaint, a motion he partially rejected in a March 5 order.
The plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys with the Wilshire Law Firm, of Los Angeles.
The women said they bought several Boar’s Head products as far back as June 2022, including chicken, cheese, turkey and salami, and claimed “they each read, understood and relied on marketing representations from defendant’s website before making their purchases,” according to Huie. Their lawsuit followed a January 2025 Associated Press report that “disclosed unsanitary conditions documented by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection reports at a number of defendant’s facilities,” he continued, specifically those in Forrest City, Arkansas, New Castle, Indiana, and Petersburg, Virginia.
Among the complaint’s allegations were the facilities had “meat and fat residue left on equipment and walls,” “dripping condensation contaminating food,” “mold growth” and “insect infestations.” The women cited 19 Boar’s Head website statements they found problematic, while one plaintiff said she also relied on three statements from a printed “Nutrition Facts & Recipes” booklet.
Boar’s Head first argued the complaint didn’t show the products came from the facilities in question, but Huie noted the plaintiffs claim those plants processed goods for sale in California, and “although defendant derides these allegations as ‘guesswork,’ they are sufficient for purposes of standing at this stage.”
The company also said the customers didn’t refute an assertion they consumed the products without issue, but Huie said that position misconstrues the legal theory that the harm stems from paying inflated prices for goods purportedly of a higher quality than other similar items. And although Boar’s Head argued the women didn’t have grounds to seek an injunction, given they could access public USDA reports before making additional purchases, Huie said the U.S. Ninth Circuit Appeals Court allows plaintiffs to pursue court orders connected to false advertising claims when they allege they are open to buying the products again if the promotional language is indeed factual.
Huie did agree with Boar’s Head that some of the language on its website was too vague to form the basis of legal action, such as those “phrased in terms of the quality of products, the company’s commitment to quality, or the company’s standards of quality,” insofar as they don’t relate to an absolute or specific product feature. So too are “general statements about commitments to sanitation or safety,” he said.
But then, Huie continued, there “are statements about manufacturing and related processes. Some of these statements are vague and generalized, while others contain elements that are specific and objectively measurable claims. In some instances, however, those elements that are specific and objectively measurable are not elements that plaintiffs contend are false.”
For example, a reference to food that is “skillfully hand trimmed and handcrafted” is “non-actionable puffery,” Huie wrote, while a pledge to “continuously improve our time-honored traditional processes through the involvement of our dedicated employees” is “vague and aspirational.
But Boar’s Head also asserted its “products are not highly processed,” and Huie said that “because deli meats are widely understood to be processed to some degree, at issue here is whether the assertion that the products are ‘highly’ processed is actionable.” He determined use of that adjective regarding lunchmeat shelf life “is not susceptible of objective verification, and would not induce the reliance of a reasonable consumer.”
Ultimately, the only statement the plaintiffs are allowed to challenge is a claim that “strict food safety standards and protocols are embedded in our processes and procedures.” But only three of the four plaintiffs alleged they relied on that statement, so Huie dismissed the fourth as a plaintiff altogether.
Huie further said the complaint “appears to allege omissions as an independent basis for liability” but called those claims “highly generalized” allegations in that they lacked details about what the women though Boar’s Head was required to disclose. He also dismissed the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim as relates to damages based on untimely filing.
Finally, Boar’s Head argued against the request for a court order to change corporate labeling practices as pre-empted by both the Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The company said granting an injunction would violate provisions barring states from imposing additional or different requirements. But Huie said if a jury determine the statement about foot safety protocol and standards to be deceptive, “the court does not see how ordering appropriate injunctive relief — including enjoining defendant from continuing to make that statement — would be preempted by federal product labelling regulations. There is no indication that this same statement is contained on product labelling or has been approved by federal regulators.”
Huie also said he would not give the plaintiffs a chance to further amend their complaint.
Boar's Head is represented by attorneys from the firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, of Los Angeles.
