The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during September 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].
1. Castillo v. Walmart
Plaintiff Rebeca Castillo filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging deceptive advertising and labeling of its Parent’s Choice Yogurt Bites. The complaint asserts that Walmart misled consumers by prominently labeling the product as containing “No Preservatives” while including ascorbic acid, which the plaintiff argues is a chemical preservative. Castillo claims that Walmart knowingly used this representation to appeal to health-conscious consumers, particularly parents, who are willing to pay a premium for products perceived as preservative-free.
The lawsuit seeks damages, equitable relief, and an injunction against Walmart’s allegedly deceptive marketing practices. Castillo argues that reasonable consumers lack the specialized knowledge to recognize ascorbic acid as a preservative and that Walmart intentionally obscured this fact by listing it as “Vitamin C.” The complaint alleges violations of California’s consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Castillo contends she and other class members suffered economic harm by paying for a misrepresented product and that Walmart unjustly profited from these misleading claims.
2. Dawar v. Sam’s West
Plaintiff Rajat Dawar filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Sam’s West Inc. and Sam’s East Inc., alleging false and deceptive advertising of their Olivari Avocado Oil. The complaint claims that Sam’s Club marketed and sold the product as “100% Pure Avocado Oil,” but independent testing revealed that it was adulterated with other oils. Dawar argues that consumers rely on such representations to make purchasing decisions, particularly given the health benefits associated with pure avocado oil.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, and fraud, asserting that Sam’s Club intentionally misled consumers to command a price premium. The complaint further states that Dawar and other class members would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had they known it was not pure avocado oil. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent Sam’s Club from continuing these allegedly deceptive practices.
3. Dildine v. Weis Markets
Plaintiff Dildine filed a class action lawsuit against Weis Markets, Inc., alleging deceptive labeling practices regarding artificial flavors. The complaint argues that Weis Markets falsely markets certain food products as “naturally flavored” while they contain artificial ingredients. The plaintiff claims that reasonable consumers prefer natural over artificial flavors and are willing to pay more for products labeled as such.
The lawsuit contends that Weis Markets knowingly engaged in deceptive marketing tactics to increase sales and misled consumers about the nature of its products. Citing studies and consumer surveys, the complaint asserts that a substantial portion of consumers are misled by such representations. The plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction against further deceptive advertising, and restitution for affected consumers.
4. Enriques v. Only What You Need (OWYN)
Plaintiff Enriques filed a lawsuit against Only What You Need (OWYN), alleging misleading marketing of its plant-based protein products. The complaint claims that OWYN misrepresented its products as free from certain allergens and artificial ingredients while independent testing indicated otherwise. The plaintiff asserts that these misrepresentations deceived health-conscious consumers into purchasing the products under false pretenses.
The lawsuit alleges violations of consumer protection laws and seeks damages for economic harm caused by the misleading claims. The plaintiff argues that OWYN knowingly exploited consumer trust in clean-label branding and that the company should be held accountable for deceptive business practices. The complaint requests injunctive relief to prevent further false advertising and demands refunds for affected customers.
5. Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that Tyson misled consumers with claims of “net-zero” climate emissions and “climate-smart” beef. The complaint argues that Tyson’s industrial meat production is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and that the company has no viable plan to achieve its advertised sustainability goals. EWG contends that Tyson’s representations violate the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by falsely implying environmental benefits that do not exist.
The lawsuit highlights the impact of industrial animal agriculture on climate change, alleging that Tyson’s emissions rival those of entire countries. EWG seeks an injunction to stop Tyson from making deceptive environmental claims, arguing that the company’s marketing misleads consumers into believing its beef products are environmentally friendly. The complaint asserts that consumers, particularly those concerned about sustainability, are being deceived into purchasing Tyson products under false environmental pretenses.
6. Foster v. Nestlé
Plaintiff Stephanie Foster filed a class action lawsuit against Nestlé USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that its Toll House Morsels falsely claim to contain “100% Real Chocolate.” The complaint asserts that the products contain non-chocolate ingredients, including soy lecithin and natural flavors, which are used to mimic the taste and texture of real chocolate while reducing production costs. Foster claims that consumers reasonably expect 100% real chocolate to be made exclusively from cacao-derived ingredients.
The lawsuit alleges that Nestlé intentionally misled consumers through false advertising and misbranding, leading them to pay a premium for a product that does not meet their expectations. The plaintiff argues that Nestlé violated Illinois consumer protection laws and federal food labeling regulations by making deceptive claims. Foster seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Nestlé to revise its product labeling to reflect the true composition of its chocolate morsels.
7. Frost v. Aldi
Plaintiff Maggie Frost filed a class action lawsuit against Aldi Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Aldi falsely advertised its Simply Nature 100% Pure Avocado Oil. The complaint claims that Aldi marketed the product as pure avocado oil, but third-party testing showed it was adulterated with other oils. Frost argues that Aldi’s misleading labeling deceived consumers who rely on product purity for health benefits and dietary considerations.
The lawsuit accuses Aldi of violating New York’s General Business Law, breaching express warranties, and committing fraud. The plaintiff contends that Aldi charged a price premium for what consumers believed to be pure avocado oil, leading to financial harm. Frost seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Aldi from continuing its allegedly deceptive advertising practices.
8. Garcia v. Herr Foods
Plaintiff Alex Garcia filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Herr Foods Inc., alleging false and deceptive marketing of its “Jalapeño Poppers Flavored Cheese Curls.” The complaint argues that the product’s branding misleads consumers into believing it contains actual jalapeño poppers or significant jalapeño ingredients. The packaging features bold colors, images of jalapeños, and claims of being “oven-baked with real cheese,” yet the ingredient list reveals minimal jalapeño content and the use of artificial flavors to simulate the expected taste.
The lawsuit claims that Herr Foods violated consumer protection laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law, by misbranding the product. The plaintiff asserts that consumers paid a premium based on misleading representations about the authenticity of the ingredients. The case seeks damages, an injunction against deceptive labeling, and corrective advertising to inform consumers about the true nature of the product.
9. Gatoff v. Boar’s Head
Plaintiff Sheryl Gatoff filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Boar’s Head Provisions Co., Inc., alleging deceptive marketing of its meat products. The lawsuit claims that Boar’s Head failed to disclose that its products were contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, a harmful bacterium known to cause severe illness. The plaintiff contends that Boar’s Head continued to sell its products despite being aware of the contamination, endangering consumers’ health.
The complaint highlights the risks of listeria infection, particularly for pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals. Gatoff argues that Boar’s Head misled consumers by omitting critical safety information, violating California’s consumer protection laws. The lawsuit seeks damages, corrective action, and an injunction requiring Boar’s Head to disclose contamination risks and implement stricter safety measures in its manufacturing processes.
10. Golikov v. Walmart
Plaintiff Edie Golikov filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging deceptive advertising of its Great Value brand avocado oil. The complaint claims that Walmart labeled and marketed the product as “100% Pure Avocado Oil,” but independent testing revealed that it was adulterated with cheaper oils. The plaintiff argues that Walmart misled consumers, who paid a premium for what they believed was pure avocado oil.
The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breaches of warranty and misrepresentation. Golikov contends that Walmart profited from deceptive marketing and that consumers suffered financial harm as a result. The plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction against misleading labeling, and restitution for affected customers.
11. Harris v. Wakefern
The lawsuit against Wakefern Food Corp. alleges deceptive advertising practices concerning artificial flavors in its food products. The plaintiff contends that Wakefern misled consumers by marketing products as naturally flavored while they contained artificial ingredients. The complaint cites consumer preferences for natural flavors and argues that the company capitalized on these preferences to increase sales.
The lawsuit claims violations of consumer protection laws, arguing that Wakefern’s labeling practices are misleading and create a false perception of the product’s quality. The plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction against false advertising, and corrective labeling to accurately reflect the product’s composition.
12. Jackson v. VNGR Beverage
Plaintiff Vanessa Jackson filed a class action lawsuit against VNGR Beverage LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company falsely marketed its “Poppi” prebiotic soda as beneficial for gut health. The complaint argues that Poppi is a sugar-sweetened beverage with minimal fiber content, making its health claims misleading. The plaintiff contends that VNGR leveraged consumer interest in gut health to promote the product while failing to disclose the negative effects of added sugar on digestion.
The lawsuit accuses VNGR of violating California’s consumer protection laws and breaching express and implied warranties. Jackson seeks damages for financial harm suffered by consumers and an injunction against further deceptive marketing. The complaint highlights how VNGR’s branding misleads consumers into believing Poppi is a healthier alternative to traditional sodas, despite its sugar content and lack of proven health benefits.
13. Knight v. Walmart
The lawsuit against Walmart alleges deceptive advertising practices, but details of the case are limited. The plaintiff challenges Walmart’s marketing and labeling of a product, arguing that the company engaged in misleading business practices. The complaint likely involves false advertising, breach of warranty, or consumer protection violations.
The plaintiff seeks damages and corrective action against Walmart’s allegedly deceptive marketing tactics. The case follows a pattern of litigation against major retailers for misrepresenting product ingredients, benefits, or sourcing. Further details are needed to determine the exact nature of the claims.
14. McLean v. Walmart
Plaintiff McLean filed a lawsuit against Walmart in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, challenging the company’s advertising and product labeling practices. The complaint alleges that Walmart engaged in false and deceptive marketing, misleading consumers about the quality or composition of certain products.
The lawsuit seeks damages for economic harm suffered by consumers, an injunction against Walmart’s deceptive practices, and corrective advertising. While specific product details are unclear, the case aligns with broader consumer protection claims against Walmart regarding misrepresentation in labeling and advertising.
15. Melendez v. R.W. Garcia
Plaintiff Myrna Melendez filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against R.W. Garcia Co. Inc., alleging deceptive labeling and advertising of its Harvest Crackers and Organic Sweet Potato Crackers. The lawsuit claims that the company prominently markets the crackers as being made from premium ingredients like pumpkin, blue corn, and sweet potatoes while failing to disclose that these ingredients are present in only minimal amounts. Instead, the primary ingredients are standard, lower-cost alternatives like stone-ground yellow corn, misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing a healthier, premium product.
Melendez argues that this deceptive marketing violates state consumer protection laws and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s (FFDCA) misbranding provisions. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction requiring R.W. Garcia to correct its product labeling, and restitution for consumers who purchased the crackers under false pretenses. The plaintiff contends that such misrepresentations allowed the company to charge a premium price for its products while misleading health-conscious buyers.
16. Morrison v. Sovena
Plaintiff Ebony Morrison filed a class action lawsuit against Sovena USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging false advertising related to its Olivari brand avocado oil. The complaint claims that Sovena markets the product as “100% Pure Cold Pressed Avocado Oil,” but independent testing revealed that it is adulterated with other, cheaper oils. Morrison asserts that consumers pay a premium for pure avocado oil due to its perceived health benefits and high nutritional value, making Sovena’s labeling particularly misleading.
The lawsuit seeks damages for economic harm, an injunction requiring Sovena to change its labeling, and restitution for affected consumers. Morrison claims that Sovena’s deceptive marketing tactics violate California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case underscores a growing trend of legal challenges against food manufacturers accused of falsely advertising product purity.
17. Ortiz v. Eagle Family Foods
Plaintiff Carlos Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Eagle Family Foods Group LLC, alleging deceptive labeling of its “Movie Theater Butter” popcorn. The complaint claims that the product is marketed as being made with “real butter,” leading consumers to believe it contains a substantial amount of actual butter. However, the ingredient list reveals that the popcorn contains only “clarified butter” and “natural butter flavor,” which Ortiz argues is misleading.
Ortiz asserts that Eagle Family Foods violated state consumer protection laws by falsely advertising the popcorn’s butter content. The lawsuit seeks damages, an injunction requiring the company to change its product labeling, and restitution for consumers who purchased the popcorn under the impression that it contained a higher percentage of real butter. The complaint highlights the increasing scrutiny of food manufacturers’ use of “real” ingredient claims.
18. Rittenhouse v. Topco
Plaintiff Gregory Rittenhouse filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Topco Associates LLC, alleging false advertising related to its rice cakes. The complaint claims that Topco prominently labels the product as “Apple Cinnamon Naturally Flavored Rice Cakes,” leading consumers to believe that the apple and cinnamon flavors come from natural sources. However, the ingredient list indicates that artificial flavoring is used, contradicting the product’s marketing claims.
The lawsuit argues that Topco’s labeling practices mislead consumers and violate state consumer protection laws and federal food labeling regulations. Rittenhouse seeks damages, an injunction to prevent further deceptive advertising, and restitution for affected consumers. The case emphasizes the growing demand for transparency in food labeling and the legal challenges faced by companies that misrepresent the sources of their product flavors.
19. Sarrubbo v. Zidian
Plaintiff Nancy Sarrubbo filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Zidian Manufacturing, Inc., alleging deceptive marketing of its “Little Italy in the Bronx” pasta sauce. The complaint asserts that the product’s labeling misleads consumers into believing it is made in the Bronx, New York, when it is actually produced in Ohio. The packaging features references to “Arthur Avenue” and “New York’s Authentic Little Italy,” reinforcing the false perception of its origin.
Sarrubbo contends that Zidian’s misleading branding allowed it to charge a premium price for a product that does not have the advertised regional authenticity. The lawsuit seeks damages, injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive marketing, and restitution for consumers who purchased the sauce based on false claims. The case highlights the legal risks associated with using geographic branding to imply authenticity.
20. Taylor v. Mariani
Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Mariani Packing Co. Inc., alleging deceptive advertising of its Vanilla Yogurt Raisins. The complaint claims that the product’s labeling and imagery suggest that it contains real vanilla from vanilla beans, while the ingredient list reveals that the flavoring comes from “natural flavor” rather than real vanilla. Taylor argues that this misrepresentation exploits consumer demand for natural ingredients while using cheaper substitutes.
The lawsuit alleges that Mariani’s deceptive marketing practices violate state consumer protection laws and federal food labeling regulations. Taylor seeks damages, an injunction requiring the company to revise its product labeling, and restitution for consumers who purchased the product under false pretenses. The case reflects ongoing legal scrutiny of misleading ingredient claims in packaged foods.
21. Trammell v. No Sugar Company
Plaintiff Collin Trammell filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against No Sugar Company Ltd., alleging false advertising of its Joyburst energy drinks. The complaint claims that the company markets the drinks as containing only natural ingredients while using artificial flavoring agents, such as malic acid. Trammell argues that this misrepresentation deceives consumers who seek “clean label” products free from synthetic additives.
The lawsuit contends that No Sugar Company’s deceptive marketing violates California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Trammell seeks damages, an injunction against misleading labeling, and restitution for affected consumers. The case highlights increasing legal challenges against companies that falsely market their products as natural.
22. Tucker v. Seven Sundays
Plaintiff Michele Tucker filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, against Seven Sundays LLC, alleging deceptive advertising of its Protein Oats product. The complaint claims that the company prominently advertises a specific protein content per serving but fails to disclose the protein’s digestibility or quality-adjusted daily value, as required by federal labeling regulations. Tucker argues that this omission misleads consumers into believing they are receiving more usable protein than they actually are.
The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Tucker seeks damages, an injunction requiring Seven Sundays to correct its labeling, and restitution for consumers who purchased the product under false assumptions. The case highlights regulatory enforcement against misleading protein content claims in food labeling.
23. White v. Blue Diamond
Plaintiff Bryan White filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Blue Diamond Growers, alleging deceptive advertising of its “Smokehouse Almonds.” The complaint claims that the product’s branding leads consumers to believe the almonds are smoked using traditional hardwood smoking methods when, in reality, they are flavored with “Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor,” a liquid smoke additive. White argues that consumers seek authentic smoking processes for taste and health reasons and that Blue Diamond’s labeling misleads purchasers into paying a premium for a product that does not meet their expectations.
The lawsuit alleges violations of New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law and federal food labeling regulations. White contends that Blue Diamond misbrands its product by using the term “Smokehouse” without clarifying that the smoked taste is artificially produced. The plaintiff seeks damages, an injunction to prevent misleading marketing, and revised labeling that accurately reflects the product’s ingredients and production process. The case highlights the broader issue of misleading food labeling in the packaged snack industry.
24. Wright v. Apple & Eve
Plaintiff Latonya Wright filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Apple & Eve LLC, alleging deceptive marketing of its “Very Berry” and “Berry Medley” 100% juice products. The complaint argues that the juice branding and imagery mislead consumers into believing that the beverages contain a significant amount of berry juices such as strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries. However, the ingredient list reveals that the primary ingredients are apple and pear juice, with berry juice present only in minimal amounts. Wright asserts that the company uses misleading packaging to justify premium pricing for a product that does not deliver on its berry content claims.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple & Eve’s labeling practices violate federal and state consumer protection laws, including the New York Agriculture and Markets Law. Wright seeks damages, an injunction requiring Apple & Eve to revise its labeling, and restitution for consumers who purchased the product under false assumptions. The case underscores growing legal scrutiny over food and beverage companies that use fruit imagery and marketing language to suggest higher-value ingredients that are present only in trace amounts.
