Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

FIFRA Preempts State Law Claims That Directly or Indirectly Challenge
Sufficiency of Herbicide Labeling

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Dow AgroSciences, L.L.C. v. Bates, 205 F. Supp. 2d 623 (N.D. Tex. 2002), the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the herbicide manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted peanut growers' state law claims. The manufacturer brought an action against a group of peanut growers seeking a declaratory judgment in response to the peanut growers' letters of demand. In the manufacturer's production and marketing of the herbicide, the group claimed that the manufacturer had breached implied and express warranty claims, misrepresented the product, and conducted fraudulent trade practices. The group sought consequential and incidental damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Background

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of pesticides and herbicides, produced and marketed the herbicide Strongarm, designed to control weeds in crops of peanuts. Id. at 624. After Strongarm hit the market, the plaintiff began to receive letters from consumers claiming that the herbicide was highly toxic and failed to control weed growth. Id. Additionally, the letters asserted that the plaintiff misrepresented Strongarm and accused the plaintiff of false advertising, breach of warranty, and statutory claims for alleged deceptive and fraudulent trade practices. Id. The consumer-growers demanded "payment from Plaintiff for certain damages, including consequential and incidental damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses." Id. In response, the plaintiff filed the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that FIFRA expressly preempted each of the consumers' claims. Id. at 625. The consumers asserted that their claims were not expressly preempted by FIFRA. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

Through FIFRA, Congress created "a comprehensive regulatory scheme for pesticide and herbicide labeling" that expressly preempts conflicting state law, "including state common law tort claims." Id. at 625-26. The plaintiff argued that FIFRA expressly preempted each of the consumers' claims in the instant suit. The court addressed the relationship between FIFRA and each of the consumers' claims in turn. Id. at 626-28.

The court first addressed whether FIFRA expressly preempted the consumers' breach of implied warranty claims. Id. at 626. The consumers claimed that FIFRA did not preempt their implied warranty claims because the claims were not based on inadequate labeling, but rather arose from oral communications that the plaintiff made about the efficacy of Strongarm. Id. The court held "that FIFRA preempt[ed] [the consumers'] breach of implied warranty claims because [i]n every instance the defects alleged [by the consumers were] linked to the specifications set forth in the label." Id.

Next, the court addressed whether FIFRA preempted the consumers' breach of express warranty claims. Id. The consumers argued that their breach of express warranty claims were not preempted by FIFRA because "express warranties [were] not a requirement imposed by a state." Id. However, the court held that "premising liability on the inaccuracy of a statement on the label [was] in effect challenging the label, and FIFRA preempt[ed] any claim that directly or indirectly challenge[d] the sufficiency of the label," and therefore "[the consumers'] express warranty claims [were] preempted by FIFRA because they challenge[d] the Strongarm label. Id. Additionally, the court held that even if FIFRA had not preempted the consumers' breach of warranty claims, Stongarm's label expressly disclaimed express and implied warranties of merchantability and any other implied warranties, which effectively foreclosed the consumers' claims. Id. at 626-27.

Finally, the court then addressed the plaintiff's claims that the consumers' Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud claims were preempted by FIFRA. Id. at 627. The plaintiff argued that these claims were essentially "misrepresentation through advertising claims," which were also challenges directed at Strongarm's label. Id. The consumers argued that these claims were "based on the representations and promises made by Plaintiff's authorized local retail distributors and representatives." Id. The court held that "[o]ff-label remarks [were] preempted when they merely repeat[ed] the information on the label." Id. Because the plaintiff's distributors and representatives were merely "repeat[ing] the information contained on the Strongarm label," FIFRA preempted the consumers' Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud claims. Id.

The case was decided on June 3, 2002.