The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during February 2024. Below is a summary of the plaintiff’s allegations. To request a copy of a particular complaint or for queries or further discussion, you’re welcome to reach out via email at [email protected].
- Vineyard v. La Terra Fina USA LLC.
Patricia Vineyard, the plaintiff, is taking legal action against La Terra Fina USA, LLC, alleging deceptive and unfair marketing practices regarding its “la terra fina” brand Dips. The complaint contends that despite being labeled as “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, COLORS OR PRESERVATIVES,” the Dips contain food grade citric acid, a synthetic preservative. This discrepancy, according to the plaintiff, constitutes false, deceptive, and misleading representation, leading her and others to pay an inflated price for the product. Seeking damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and Illinois common law, the plaintiff also asserts claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and ICFA violation for unfair practices. Additionally, she aims to represent a class comprising all current Illinois residents who purchased the Dips during the specified period, providing her qualifications and reasoning for pursuing a class action lawsuit.
- Van Meter v. Mondelez International, Inc.
Megan Waggener Van Meter has filed a class action complaint against Mondelez International, Inc., on behalf of herself and others in similar circumstances. Represented by attorneys James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan, Justin M. Caparco, and Lauren A. Warwick, the complaint alleges four violations: the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law (twice), and Unjust Enrichment. The plaintiff contends that Mondelez contributes to child and slave labor by paying cocoa farmers as little as $3 per day, and asserts that the company’s Cocoa Life program fails to effectively combat child labor. Furthermore, the plaintiff accuses Mondelez of environmental degradation, particularly in the Ivory Coast through deforestation. It is argued that Mondelez deceives consumers by labeling its products as “100% sustainable” or “certified” when they do not meet such standards, causing harm as consumers are willing to pay more for ethically sourced goods. Seeking damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief, the plaintiff cites the FTC Green Guides and the California Environmental Marketing Claims Act as legal grounds for these claim.
- Starks V. Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Shaianne Starks has filed a class action complaint against Celsius Holdings, Inc., representing herself and others in similar circumstances. The complaint contends that Celsius is marketing and selling unapproved drugs, such as “Live Fit,” “Genesis Ultra Slim Gold,” and “365 Skinny High Intensity.” It argues that these products qualify as “drugs” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because they are promoted with claims of accelerating metabolism, burning body fat, and providing benefits akin to prescription weight loss drugs. Additionally, the complaint alleges that these products are not only unapproved but also ineffective, unsafe, and misbranded due to false and misleading labeling. Furthermore, it asserts that Celsius’s actions violate California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the California Civil Code, deeming them “unfair” and “unlawful.” Seeking an injunction to halt Celsius’s marketing and sales of these products, the plaintiff also seeks damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
- Spivey V. Evig LLC.
William Spivey has initiated a class action complaint against Evig LLC, operating as Balance of Nature, and Douglas L. Howard, on behalf of himself and others facing similar circumstances. The complaint alleges that the defendants have disseminated false and deceptive health and well-being claims regarding the supposed benefits of using Balance of Nature. They are accused of unlawfully marketing and selling the product for treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing various ailments and diseases. Notably, the FDA issued a warning letter to the defendants in 2019, leading to a consent decree to cease making disease claims. The focus of the complaint lies on the defendants’ misleading assertions concerning the nutritional advantages of Balance of Nature. It argues that the product fails to offer a cost-effective means of supplementing one’s diet, containing minimal nutrients and primarily consisting of sugar. Additionally, the complaint challenges the product’s labeling, which claims to provide “real nutrition,” “real food,” and “real science,” deeming it misleading. The document outlines details regarding the jurisdiction, venue, involved parties, and defines the allegations of the class action lawsuit.
- Shuton v. Jonny Pops
Jose Shuton has filed a class action complaint against Jonny Pops LLC and DOES 1-10, representing himself and others in similar circumstances. The complaint alleges that Jonny Pops LLC engages in misleading, unlawful, and fraudulent packaging and advertising practices to market its ice pops. Specifically, it accuses the company of portraying its products as containing “simple, natural ingredients,” despite the nutritional content being primarily derived from added cane sugar. The complaint identifies the specific products violating California law, defines the classes of plaintiffs affected, and outlines additional claims against Jonny Pops LLC, including violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law. Seeking an injunction to halt Jonny Pops LLC’s deceptive practices, the plaintiff also seeks restitution, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- Pistorio V. Mars Wrigley Confectionery Us LLC.
Plaintiff Edward Pistorio is initiating a class action complaint against Mars Wrigley Confectionery US LLC, alleging that the company is deceiving consumers by asserting that their Cheddar Cheese Stuffed Snacks are “made with real cheese.” The plaintiff asserts that this claim holds significance for consumers who are increasingly prioritizing healthier food options and scrutinizing ingredient lists. However, upon examination of the ingredients, it is revealed that the filling primarily consists of palm oil and dairy product solids, with less than 2% of the product actually containing cheese. According to the plaintiff, this constitutes a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Florida Food Safety Act, which prohibit “misbranding” or misleading labeling. Furthermore, the plaintiff argues that the assertion of “made with real cheese” is misleading, as the cheese substitutes used in the product lack the nutritional value, taste, and quality associated with genuine cheese. The complaint establishes jurisdiction and venue for the case, provides details about the involved parties, defines the class of plaintiffs, outlines the legal basis for the complaint, and specifies the violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and False and Misleading Advertising statute.
- Myles Et Al V. A Better Brand, Inc.
Plaintiffs Zokwezo Myles and Erin Scott are suing A Better Brand, Inc., alleging deceptive practices in the labeling and marketing of their food products. They claim that A Better Brand fails to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel while prominently displaying protein claims on the front of their packages, violating FDA regulations. The plaintiffs argue that this omission could mislead consumers about the protein quality in the products. They emphasize the importance of protein in a healthy diet and assert that A Better Brand’s products do not meet FDA regulations. The plaintiffs allege that the company is intentionally deceiving consumers for profit. They seek remedies including compensation for the price premium paid for the products, class certification, an injunction against A Better Brand, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, and a jury trial. The court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, with venue in the Northern District of California.
- Hamzeh V. Pharmavite LLC.
The case involves a class action complaint against Pharmavite LLC and Nature Made Nutritional Products over allegedly misleading claims regarding the health benefits of their fish oil supplements. Plaintiff Guity Hamzeh argues that the labeling, particularly regarding cardiovascular health improvements, lacks substantial evidence and is false and misleading. The complaint lists eight causes of action, including violations of state consumer protection acts, California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Hamzeh asserts that the defendants’ misrepresentations are likely to deceive reasonable consumers and seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a jury trial to address the alleged deceptive practices.
- BIGLER vs SAFEWAY INC.
The class action complaint against Safeway Inc. alleges violations of the CLRA, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express warranty. Plaintiff Kellie Bigler claims Safeway’s Open Nature products, labeled “Free From Artificial Flavors & Preservatives,” contain citric acid, a synthetic preservative with harmful effects. Evidence supports this assertion. The document seeks jurisdiction in Alameda County, California, advocates for class certification due to numerous affected individuals, and outlines relief sought, including restitution, injunctive relief, and damages.
- Albright v. Solely Inc.
In a court filing from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Nancy Albright sues Solely, Inc. for deceptive labeling practices on their fruit gummies. Albright alleges the company falsely claims “No Artificial Colors or Flavors” while including ascorbic acid, which she argues is a synthetic flavor. The suit alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and common law. Albright seeks damages and advocates for a class action lawsuit, citing breach of express warranty, MMPA violations, and unjust enrichment. Jurisdiction lies with the court due to the case’s financial scope, and venue is appropriate in St. Louis City, Albright’s residence and the site of her alleged harm.
- Degioanni v Kroger
Plaintiff Amy Degioanni is suing The Kroger Corporation for misbranding and falsely advertising their products, specifically Kroger’s Fruit & Grain Cereal bars and Kroger’s Vitamin, Refresh, and Energy water enhancers. The case is being filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which has jurisdiction due to the Class Action Fairness Act and the amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000. The court also has personal jurisdiction over the defendant because of their business interactions in the district. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant falsely claims the products are “naturally flavored” when they contain a synthetic ingredient called DL malic acid, which should have been disclosed on the label according to federal regulations. The plaintiff argues that this omission is misleading to consumers. The plaintiff also details the class action allegations, including the numerosity, commonality, and typicality of the class, and outlines three additional counts against the defendant: violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express or implied warranty.
- Barrales v Ghost Beverages
Plaintiffs Tinamarie Barrales and Michael Williams are suing Ghost Beverages LLC and Mondelez International, Inc. for deceptive promotion of Ghost products using Mondelez branding. They allege that Ghost markets energy drinks as safe for children with child-friendly flavors, despite documented health risks. Claiming their children suffered adverse effects, they seek damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Allegations include violations of consumer protection acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. The court holds jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, with venue in the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs aim to represent multiple classes in the case.
- Duncan v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiff Kyle Duncan sues Costco Wholesale Corporation, Rizo-Lopez Foods, Inc., and Reser’s Fine Foods, Inc. for selling contaminated Southwest Chicken Wraps between October 27, 2023, and February 6, 2024. Duncan alleges negligence in manufacturing and distributing the wraps, leading to violations of the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit represents three classes of affected individuals and is filed in the Southern District of Florida under the Class Action Fairness Act. Duncan personally suffered illness and underwent surgery after consuming the wraps, prompting investigations and product recalls by the FDA and CDC.
- Serrano v Campbell Soup
Plaintiffs Monic Serrano and Debra Shaw file a class action complaint against Campbell Soup Company, alleging various violations including false advertising and deceptive labeling of their “V8 Splash” products. They argue that the products are misrepresented as wholesome fruit-juice beverages when they are artificially flavored sugar-water. The plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, and an order to compel Campbell to cease deceptive practices. The court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, with venue in the Central District of California.
- Palacios v Rowdy
Mario Palacios files a class action complaint against Rowdy Beverage, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that Rowdy Beverage’s energy drinks are misbranded and deceptively labeled, particularly regarding claims of containing “No Preservatives Added” and no artificial flavoring. It argues that the presence of citric acid and DL malic acid in the drinks contradicts these claims, as both are commonly used as preservatives and flavoring agents. The complaint also contends that Rowdy Beverage violates federal regulations by not disclosing the use of these ingredients on the label. Additionally, the complaint outlines the plaintiff’s reliance on the label accuracy and presents class action allegations. It further includes three additional counts against Rowdy Beverage: violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees, represented by attorney Charles C. Weller.
- Dotson v Roxane
Plaintiff Michael Dotson files a class action complaint against CG Roxane, LLC, alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law and California’s Unfair Business Practices Act. Dotson contends that the defendant falsely labeled and marketed its bottled water as “Natural Alpine Spring Water” despite containing microplastics, which he argues contradict its claim of being “natural” according to the FDA’s definition. The complaint references multiple studies highlighting the harmful effects of microplastics on human health. Dotson further asserts that he was unaware of the presence of microplastics in the bottled water at the time of purchase. The complaint details the class action allegations and identifies common questions of law and fact shared by the class. Dotson seeks damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
- Fitzgerald v. The Quaker Oats Company
Plaintiff Lilian Fitzgerald sues Quaker Oats Company for selling oat-based products containing dangerous levels of the chemical pesticide chlormequat chloride. Filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, Fitzgerald seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the products during the statute of limitations period. Alleging violations of New York General Business Law, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment, Fitzgerald argues that Quaker Oats failed to disclose the presence of chlormequat chloride on product packaging or warn about associated health risks. Seeking damages, restitution, and an injunction, Fitzgerald asserts that a class action is the most efficient method to address the claims of all affected consumers.
- McConnon v Kroger.
Sissy McConnon has filed a class action complaint against The Kroger Co. for falsely labeling its Private Selection Avocado Oil as pure avocado oil when it allegedly contains other oils. The complaint alleges violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. McConnon seeks relief for breach of warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and injunctive relief to halt Kroger’s deceptive practices. The complaint defines the affected classes, outlines legal grounds, and specifies the relief sought.
- Morales v Calbee.
The document is Andy Morales has filed a class action complaint against Calbee America, Inc. alleging violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The complaint asserts that Calbee’s Harvest Snap products are falsely labeled as containing “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” despite containing citric acid, deemed an artificial preservative. Morales argues he was deceived by the labeling and seeks relief for himself and the class. The complaint cites expert testimony and FDA guidelines to support the claims and discusses broader consumer impact and legal basis for the class action. It also references FDA violations by Oak Tree Farm Dairy and argues for class certification. Morales asserts the court’s jurisdiction and venue in Los Angeles County.
- Epstein v General Mills.
Plaintiff Steven Epstein is suing General Mills, Inc. over Cheerios products allegedly containing dangerous levels of chlormequat chloride. The complaint claims General Mills failed to disclose this on product packaging or warn consumers of health risks. It’s filed as a class action for all who purchased during the statute of limitations. Epstein argues class action is best due to impracticality of individual litigation. Court jurisdiction is based on amount in controversy and diverse class members. The plaintiff seeks equitable and monetary relief, citing specific violations and causes of action against General Mills.
- Barrera v Campbell Soup.
Plaintiff Eunice Barrera accuses Campbell Soup Company of misbranding their “Beef with Country Vegetables” soup by misleadingly implying that beef is the main ingredient. Barrera argues that the soup’s labeling is deceptive because carrots and potatoes are listed before beef on the ingredient list, and the term “country” in the soup’s name is misleading. She claims that Campbell Soup Company is violating various regulations and laws by not accurately labeling the soup with its “common or usual name.” Barrera alleges that consumers pay a premium price for the soup based on these misleading representations. The case is filed under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in the Eastern District of New York, Central Islip Division, and Barrera is seeking relief for the class she aims to represent, including a jury trial.
- Poole v Quincy Bioscience.
This document is a Plaintiff Richard Poole has filed a class action complaint against Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., and other related entities, along with individuals Mark Underwood and Michael Beaman. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have been misleadingly marketing and selling a brain health supplement called Prevagen. Despite claims of benefits like memory improvement and clearer thinking, the plaintiff argues that Prevagen cannot deliver these promised results. The complaint delves into the background of how Prevagen came to market, including the discovery of its purported benefits, and highlights the FDA’s involvement and the flaws in the supporting Madison Memory Study. Poole contends that the defendants are exploiting consumers, particularly the elderly, by selling a product with no proven efficacy. The complaint outlines various violations of laws and false advertising claims, seeking relief and establishing the court’s jurisdiction over the case.
- Necaise v. General Mills Inc.
Katrina and Benjamin Necaise have filed a class action complaint against General Mills, Inc., alleging that the company manufactured, marketed, and distributed oat-based cereal products branded as “Cheerios” containing dangerous levels of the chemical pesticide chlormequat chloride. The plaintiffs argue that General Mills failed to disclose this presence on the product label or warn consumers about its potential risks, leading to unknowing purchases. Additionally, they claim that General Mills could charge a premium for the products due to the lack of disclosure. Seeking class action status, the plaintiffs argue that the class is numerous and that common questions of law and fact predominate, making the class action mechanism the superior approach. The complaint also includes counts of unjust enrichment and breach of an implied warranty against General Mills. The plaintiffs request a jury trial and outline the jurisdiction and venue for the case.
- McLaurin v CVS.
The class action complaint against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., filed by Eugenia McLaurin, alleges violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and breach of express warranty. McLaurin argues that CVS falsely advertises its “Hair, Skin & Nails Gummy Dietary Supplements” as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” when they contain citric acid, an artificial preservative. The complaint asserts jurisdiction over CVS in California, where the plaintiff purchased the product, and claims venue is proper in Los Angeles County. It includes images of product labels as evidence and cites FDA warnings, encyclopedia entries, and USDA guidelines to support that citric acid is an artificial preservative. McLaurin contends that the false labeling caused economic injury and that the class action is appropriate for certification, seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and damages. Additionally, the complaint argues that CVS’s conduct is “unfair” and “fraudulent,” demanding various forms of relief, including injunctions and damages.
- Albrigo v Sunny Delight.
The complaint filed against Sunny Delight Beverages Co. by Laura Willis Albrigo, represented by Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC, alleges that Sunny Delight falsely advertises its “Seltzer” drink as containing “0g sugar” when it actually contains about 2 grams of sugar. The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop deceptive marketing and compensation for injured class members. Allegations include violations of California Business and Professions Code, False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes damages, restitution, and disgorgement of profits from Sunny Delight.
