Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of Pop Secret popcorn, claiming it committed unfair business practices and breached the warranty of merchantability, by including partially hydrogenated oils (artificial trans fat) in the popcorn after the FDA had concluded that the ingredient was no longer approved for human consumption. This decision holds that plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact to grant her Article III standing in federal court. She could not establish standing on the theory of economic injury through not receiving the benefit of her bargain in buying the popcorn because she couldn’t show that absence of trans fat was part of her bargain. The popcorn packaging disclosed artificial trans fat as an ingredient. Plaintiff couldn’t show standing based on the theory that she paid more for the popcorn than it was worth. Unlike other Ninth Circuit cases which have employed that theory, here the defendant did not misrepresent its product. And plaintiff could not show that popcorn with trans fat was lower priced. The risks of trans fat had been publicized for a long time without affecting popcorn prices. Also, plaintiff could not establish standing based on the theory that the trans fat she consumed with the popcorn had caused her physical injury or threatened her with future physical injury. The scientific studies she cited and relied on in her complaint did not support her claim that consumption of any amount of trans fat (and particularly not the small quantities plaintiff consumed) invariably caused adverse health effects or that there was a substantial risk of future health problems from consumption of that amount of trans fat.