Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH)
v.
Conagra Brands
76 U.Va 17 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivering the opinion of the court.
This case comes before us on appeal from the District Court of Petty Complaints. Petitioner, Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH), is a group of students interested in “preserving the high quality of Student Affairs snacks that the founders intended.” CRONCH brought this suit after “an unfortunate snack experience” involving Respondent’s sunflower seeds. Respondent, Conagra Brands, sells various packaged foodstuffs, including the product at issue in this case, DAVID Sunflower Seeds. Petitioner alleged in their complaint that the amount of salt in a snack bag of DAVID seeds is “excessive” and “unreasonable as a matter of law.” Conagra moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a petty claim. The District Court granted Conagra’s motion, reasoning that while students have a right to a good meal, those rights do not extend to snacks like the ones at issue in this case. This appeal followed. We granted cert to determine whether Students’ alimentary rights extend to snacks from the Student Affairs Office. Because the District Court failed to appropriately weigh this Court’s precedent protecting student’s right to eat for free, we reverse.
Background
DAVID Sunflower Seeds is a well-known sunflower seed snack product, made available in several flavors, including jalapeño, buffalo, and sour cream & onion. At issue in this case is the original salted and roasted variety. These snacks are marketed and distributed widely across various retail outlets and in the Student Affairs Office. Members of CRONCH, all students at the Law School, allege that they grabbed a bag of DAVID Sunflowers Seeds in the early months of 2024. These students, initially unfamiliar with the brand, reported examining it thinking, “Oh, seeds? Birds eat those. They must be healthy.” Upon tasting them, the CRONCH students realized their mistake. They noted an exceptionally high salt content, prompting disgust and concern. Not wanting to consume enough salt to kill a horse, some students threw the snack away, feeling shame for wasting valuable SA Snacks. Others, feeling compelled to finish the bag, suffered severe dehydration from doing so.
The record reveals that a forty-six-gram “snack size” bag of original flavor DAVID Sunflowers Seeds—the kind available in Student Affairs—contains 1,960 milligrams of salt, equivalent to 85 percent of the recommended daily value of salt and comprising more than 4 percent of the snack by weight. The CRONCH students complain that no reasonable person would willingly consume this amount of salt in one sitting and that Conagra should thus be required to put a warning label on the packaging indicating that the snack is “inedibly salty.” Conagra responds by citing product reviews purporting to show that many consumers enjoy the high salinity of their products. Resp’t’s Br. 12 (“The level of saltiness is right where it needs to be.”). The Court, its Justices having sampled the product, agree wholeheartedly with CRONCH. But we must nonetheless consider Conagra’s legal obligations under these saline circumstances.
I
Jurisdiction is proper in this case. Conagra has deliberately availed itself of the Law School's market by entering its products into the stream of snackage. And the CRONCH students' complaint—in essence, that some of the free snacks the Law School provides them are too salty—is undoubtedly petty. We may thus proceed to the legal sufficiency of CRONCH’s complaint.
II
This Court has a sacred duty to “defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.” UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021). In upholding that duty, this Court has repeatedly held that students’ alimentary rights may be asserted against parties providing or consuming food at the Law School. See Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va. 12 (2022) (enjoining all student organizations from preventing students from eating free lunch until after events); Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from taking food from events hosted by organizations of which they are not members); 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from consuming more than a third of the free food at Law School events).
CRONCH argues that these cases establish students’ rights to quality snacks from any source that willingly offers up food. CRONCH also makes compelling policy arguments. Noting that grocery prices are at record highs, they ask the Court to protect students’ wallets and stomachs.
In response, Conagra distinguishes this Court’s alimentary rights cases on the ground that they involved meals, not snacks. Conagra concedes that students have a right to a decent meal but argues that extending that right to encompass snacks would open the floodgates to a slew of food and drink-related litigation. Conagra suggests in its brief that students might sue the City of Charlottesville for its water quality since city water is distributed to the students via the Law School’s water fountains. Or worse yet, disgruntled editors might sue the Law Weekly for the quality of food provided at its meetings.[1]
Conagra’s concerns are mostly misplaced. The study of law is hungry work, and law students’ rights to quality food must be vigorously protected. Even if our holding today may encourage opportunistic litigation by gourmands, courts can adequately dispose of meritless food claims by applying the Stomach Formula. If the burden of improving the quality of food is less than the probability of students’ being dissatisfied times the extent of students’ hanger, then the failure to make such an improvement likely constitutes an actionable diminution of students’ alimentary rights.
Applying this formula to the instant case, we find that CRONCH has stated a sufficient claim for denial of food rights. The students ask for a mere warning label indicating the honestly ridiculously high salt content of DAVID sunflower seeds. The burden on Conagra to apply such a label is minimal. Admittedly, the extent of students’ hanger in cases involving snacks is diminished. Disappointment with the quality of a snack is unlike cases where there is a delay or outright denial of a meal, which has the potential to upend a student’s entire day. But here, the probability of dissatisfaction saves CRONCH’s claim. Mineral-craving ibexes notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that few would willingly reach for Conagra’s seeds knowing they have been imbued with the flavor of the Dead Sea. For these reasons, we conclude that the District Court prematurely dismissed CRONCH’s claim. CRONCH is entitled to have their stomachs full and their claim heard in full. The District Court’s order dismissing the case is thus reversed.
---
tya2us@virginia.edu
[1] Conagra’s second example is puzzling, since the Domino’s pizza provided to Law Weekly editors has never before been complained of.