Squeo

I. BACKGROUND

1 The following discussion of background facts is based on the allegations contained in the 2 FAC, the truth of which the Court accepts for purposes of resolving the Motion. See Boquist v. 3 Courtney, 32 F.4th 764, 772 (9th Cir. 2022); Queen v. Mooney, No. 24-cv-02161-SVK, 2024 WL 4 3363572, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2024). “Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, and 5 sell” potato chips under the “Cape Cod” brand. See FAC ¶ 2. The packaging for several flavors 6 of Cape Cod chips “prominently displays” that the chips contain “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or 7 Preservatives.” See id. ¶¶ 2, 20-22. In reliance on this representation, Plaintiffs purchased Cape 8 Cod chips over a three-year period before commencing this action—Plaintiff Squeo in California 9 and Plaintiff Taylor in New York. See id. ¶¶ 16-18. 10 It turns out, however, that the purchased Cape Cod chips contained citric acid. See id. ¶ 11 20; see also id. ¶ 21 (label on back of package lists citric acid among ingredients). While citric 12 acid can form naturally in fruit, “it is not the naturally occurring citric acid, but the manufactured 13 citric acid . . . that is used…