The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during May 2025. 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. Kratom-Related Death Spurs Wrongful Death and Consumer Fraud Class Action
Plaintiffs: Matthew Ade, as administrator of the estate of T.A., deceased
Defendants: Hard Eight Nutrition, LLC
Product Focus: Kratom powder sold under the “Kratomade” brand
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of Texas, this class action and wrongful death lawsuit alleges that Hard Eight Nutrition marketed its “Kratomade” kratom products without adequate warnings about their opioid-like effects and addiction risks, leading to the death of T.A., a healthy 32-year-old man who was found deceased with an open packet of Kratomade by his side.
Plaintiff Matthew Ade, on behalf of the estate of T.A. and a putative class of similarly situated consumers, alleges that the kratom sold by Hard Eight contains mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, compounds that act on the same brain receptors as morphine and heroin. The lawsuit states that the product was marketed as a dietary supplement and sold online without medical guidance, child-resistant packaging, or addiction warnings, despite its known risks.
The complaint outlines how kratom dependence, withdrawal, seizures, and death are increasingly reported in clinical and toxicological literature. It also references growing regulatory scrutiny from the FDA and DEA regarding kratom’s legal status and health effects. The plaintiff claims the labeling and marketing of Kratomade violate Texas consumer protection statutes, federal food and drug laws, and common law duties of care.
Relief Sought: Compensatory and punitive damages, wrongful death damages, injunctive relief,corrective advertising, and class certification for causes of action including fraudulent concealment,unjust enrichment,design defect, failure to warn, and deceptive trade practices.
2. Class Action Targets Kratom Supplement Marketing After Fatal Overdose
Plaintiffs: K.A., individually and as successor-in-interest to E.A., deceased
Defendants: Piping Rock Health Products, LLC
Product Focus: Kratom capsules sold under the “Piping Rock” brand
Summary:
Filed in the Central District of California, this wrongful death and class action lawsuit alleges that Piping Rock marketed and sold kratom supplements without adequate warnings, leading to the death of E.A., a 30-year-old who overdosed after consuming the product as directed. The complaint asserts that the company violated federal and state consumer protection laws by marketing kratom as a safe, natural dietary supplement, despite well-documented risks of addiction, dependence, and overdose associated with its active compounds, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.
Plaintiff K.A. claims that Piping Rock failed to disclose the product’s potential to act on the brain’s opioid receptors, nor did the company provide adequate warnings about adverse health effects or the lack of FDA approval. The lawsuit also emphasizes that kratom’s safety profile is highly disputed, citing FDA advisories and scientific studies linking kratom to seizures, cardiac arrest, and death.
The complaint further alleges that Piping Rock engaged in unlawful marketing and product placement, listing kratom alongside vitamins and herbal remedies in a way that gave the appearance of legitimacy and safety. It also notes that the packaging lacked appropriate safety information, child-resistant features, and dosage instructions suited for a substance with potent psychoactive effects.
Relief Sought: Wrongful death damages, class-wide injunctive relief, corrective labeling, restitution, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Causes of action include fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), UCL, FAL, and breach of implied warranty.
3. “No Artificial Preservatives” Claim on Pasta Sauce Challenged Over Use of Citric Acid
Plaintiffs: Arpine Antossyan
Defendants: The Kroger Co.
Product Focus: Simple Truth Organic™ pasta sauces
Summary:
Filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, this class action lawsuit alleges that Kroger falsely advertises its Simple Truth Organic™ pasta sauces as containing “No Artificial Preservatives”, despite listing citric acid—an ingredient the plaintiff claims is synthetic and functions as a preservative.
Plaintiff Arpine Antossyan contends that the use of citric acid, especially when chemically manufactured from mold-fermented sugars, contradicts the product’s clean-label marketing. She asserts that reasonable consumers rely on front-label statements and are misled into paying a premium for what they believe is a preservative-free product. The complaint cites FDA and USDA guidance recognizing citric acid’s role as a preservative, particularly in acidic foods like pasta sauce, where it serves to prevent microbial growth and extend shelf life.
The lawsuit highlights a broader industry concern around the misuse of “No Artificial Preservatives” and “All Natural” claims, which continue to face increasing scrutiny from regulators and plaintiff attorneys alike. Antossyan alleges that Kroger’s practices violate California’s CLRA, UCL, FAL, and breach warranty obligations, all while deceiving health-conscious consumers.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective labeling, actual and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees for deceptive marketing and violation of state consumer protection statutes.
4. “Complete & Balanced” Dog Food Allegedly Contained Excessive Vitamin D
Plaintiffs: Helene Attias and Trisha Nadeau
Defendants: Mars Petcare US, Inc.
Product Focus: PEDIGREE Complete Nutrition Roasted Chicken & Vegetable Adult Dry Dog Food
Summary:
Filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, this class action lawsuit alleges that Mars Petcare deceptively marketed its PEDIGREE dog food as “100% Complete & Balanced” despite testing showing Vitamin D levels nearly five times higher than industry limits. Plaintiffs Helene Attias (New York) and Trisha Nadeau (Michigan) each purchased the dog food for their pets, who experienced vomiting, diarrhea, and other symptoms consistent with Vitamin D toxicity.
Independent testing cited in the complaint found the dog food contained 14,282 IU/kg of Vitamin D, far above the AAFCO maximum of 3,000 IU/kg. The plaintiffs claim that this renders the product unsafe for pets and makes the “Complete & Balanced” claim false and misleading. The complaint also references Mars’s marketing of the product as containing “36 vitamins, minerals, and amino acids” and being “made in the USA with the world’s finest ingredients,” which allegedly compounded the deception.
The lawsuit argues that the plaintiffs and proposed class members would not have purchased the product had they known it posed a health risk to their pets.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for violations of New York and Michigan consumer protection laws and breach of express warranty.
5. “No Preservatives” Label on Carrot Juice Challenged Due to Citric Acid Content
Plaintiffs: Lindsay Basile
Defendants: Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.
Product Focus: Bolthouse Farms 100% Carrot Juice
Summary:
Filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, this putative class action accuses Bolthouse Farms of falsely advertising its 100% Carrot Juice as containing “No Preservatives,” despite including citric acid—a compound widely recognized for its preservative function. Plaintiff Lindsay Basile alleges that this labeling misleads consumers, who reasonably believe the product is free of any chemical substances used to prolong shelf life.
According to the complaint, citric acid is not only synthetically manufactured but is also intentionally added to acidic beverages like juice to inhibit microbial growth and oxidation—making it a functional preservative under FDA and industry standards. The plaintiff contends that Bolthouse used the “No Preservatives” claim to exploit consumer demand for clean-label, minimally processed foods, when in fact the product does not meet those expectations.
The lawsuit further alleges that the presence of citric acid directly contradicts the marketing representations and violates consumer protection laws aimed at preventing deceptive labeling. The plaintiff purchased the product in reliance on these claims and asserts that she—and similarly situated consumers—would not have paid a premium had they known the juice contained a preservative.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, statutory and punitive damages, corrective labeling, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for violations of state consumer protection statutes, false advertising, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
6. Quaker Oats’ “Natural” Granola Bars Allegedly Contain Synthetic Preservatives
Plaintiff: JoAnn Brown
Defendant: The Quaker Oats Company
Product Focus: Quaker Chewy Granola Bars
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, this proposed class action claims that Quaker Oats misleadingly labels its granola bars as “100% Natural” while including synthetic ingredients such as tocopherols and corn syrup. Plaintiff JoAnn Brown alleges that these ingredients act as preservatives and are chemically processed—contradicting the product’s natural branding and misleading health-conscious consumers.
According to the complaint, Quaker prominently uses the phrase “100% Natural” on its granola bar packaging to command a premium price and align with consumer demand for clean-label foods. The plaintiff argues that the inclusion of processed additives and synthetic compounds undermines those representations. Specifically, the complaint targets tocopherols, which are used to extend shelf life and delay rancidity, as well as corn syrup, which is industrially manufactured.
The lawsuit asserts that these labeling practices violate federal and state consumer protection laws and unjustly enrich the company at the expense of misled purchasers.Relief Sought: Class certification, monetary and punitive damages, restitution, corrective advertising, and injunctive relief for violations of state deceptive trade practices statutes, false advertising, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty.
6. Quaker Oats’ “Natural” Granola Bars Allegedly Contain Synthetic Preservatives
Plaintiff: JoAnn Brown
Defendant: The Quaker Oats Company
Product Focus: Quaker Chewy Granola Bars
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, this proposed class action claims that Quaker Oats misleadingly labels its granola bars as “100% Natural” while including synthetic ingredients such as tocopherols and corn syrup. Plaintiff JoAnn Brown alleges that these ingredients act as preservatives and are chemically processed—contradicting the product’s natural branding and misleading health-conscious consumers.
According to the complaint, Quaker prominently uses the phrase “100% Natural” on its granola bar packaging to command a premium price and align with consumer demand for clean-label foods. The plaintiff argues that the inclusion of processed additives and synthetic compounds undermines those representations. Specifically, the complaint targets tocopherols, which are used to extend shelf life and delay rancidity, as well as corn syrup, which is industrially manufactured.
The lawsuit asserts that these labeling practices violate federal and state consumer protection laws and unjustly enrich the company at the expense of misled purchasers.
Relief Sought: Class certification, monetary and punitive damages, restitution, corrective advertising, and injunctive relief for violations of state deceptive trade practices statutes, false advertising, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty.
7. “No Artificial Preservatives” Claim on Mac & Cheese Cups Disputed Over Use of Citric Acid
Plaintiff: Patrick Bruno
Defendant: Kraft Heinz Foods Company
Product Focus: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Cups (Original Flavor)
Summary:
Filed in the Southern District of New York, this class action complaint alleges that Kraft Heinz falsely advertises its Kraft Macaroni & Cheese cups as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” despite the inclusion of citric acid, which serves a preservative function in processed foods.
Plaintiff Patrick Bruno claims that he relied on the “No Artificial Preservatives” representation when purchasing the product and would not have done so had he known citric acid was included for preservative purposes. The complaint asserts that citric acid is synthetically manufactured and used specifically to extend shelf life by preventing spoilage and microbial growth.
According to the suit, this labeling misleads consumers who pay a premium for products free of synthetic additives, particularly as clean-label marketing becomes a major factor in purchasing decisions. The plaintiff argues that Kraft’s omission of citric acid’s preservative function violates federal and New York consumer protection laws.
Relief Sought: Class certification, statutory and actual damages, corrective labeling, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
8. “No Preservatives” Claim on Coffee Mate Creamers Disputed Over Dipotassium Phosphate
Plaintiff: Corinna Calangian
Defendant: Nestlé USA, Inc.
Product Focus: Coffee Mate Zero Sugar Creamer and Original Liquid Creamer
Summary:
Filed in the Central District of California, this proposed class action alleges that Nestlé falsely labels its Coffee Mate creamers as containing “No Preservatives” despite including dipotassium phosphate, a chemical compound known for its preservative function.
Plaintiff Corinna Calangian argues that dipotassium phosphate is added to stabilize the product and inhibit spoilage, particularly in non-dairy creamers. She alleges that this renders the “No Preservatives” marketing false and misleading. The complaint further claims that Nestlé profits from these representations by targeting health-conscious consumers who are willing to pay more for preservative-free products.
The suit points to FDA and scientific literature classifying dipotassium phosphate as a stabilizer and potential preservative and highlights how its inclusion contradicts consumer expectations created by the product labeling.
Relief Sought: Class certification, monetary damages, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees for violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, along with claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
9. “Nothing Artificial” Crackers Allegedly Contain Synthetic Ingredient Propylene Glycol
Plaintiff: Laura Furman
Defendant: Simple Mills, Inc.
Product Focus: Simple Mills Almond Flour Crackers (Farmhouse Cheddar flavor)
Summary:
Filed in the Southern District of New York, this class action complaint alleges that Simple Mills falsely markets its cheddar-flavored almond flour crackers as containing “Nothing Artificial” despite the inclusion of propylene glycol, a synthetic compound often used to retain moisture and improve texture in processed foods.
Plaintiff Laura Furman argues that consumers increasingly seek clean-label products free from synthetic ingredients and are willing to pay a premium for snacks labeled as “natural” or “nothing artificial.” The lawsuit contends that the presence of propylene glycol, an FDA-regulated additive, directly contradicts the brand’s core marketing claims and misleads health-conscious buyers.
The complaint emphasizes that claims like “nothing artificial” are powerful purchase drivers, especially in the better-for-you snack food segment, and that misleading use of such phrases may constitute unfair and deceptive business practices under state and federal consumer protection laws. This case is part of a growing trend of litigation targeting natural food branding, labeling accuracy, and transparency in ingredient sourcing—topics increasingly searched by consumers and legal observers alike.
Relief Sought: Class certification, actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief, corrective labeling, and attorneys’ fees under New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
10. “Only Real Ingredients” Claim on Popcorn Challenged Over Use of Synthetic Tocopherols
Plaintiff: Julia Gibson
Defendant: Conagra Brands, Inc.
Product Focus: Orville Redenbacher’s Naturals Popcorn (Simply Salted, Light Simply Salted, Light Classic Butter & Sea Salt)
Summary:
Filed in the Eastern District of New York, this class action accuses Conagra Brands of falsely advertising its popcorn products as containing “Only Real Ingredients” and being “Natural” while including synthetic tocopherols, a chemical compound used to extend shelf life and prevent spoilage.
Plaintiff Julia Gibson claims she purchased the popcorn in reliance on its natural branding and would not have done so—or would have paid less—had she known the product included synthetic preservatives. The lawsuit argues that the use of the term “Natural” alongside statements like “Only Real Ingredients” creates a misleading impression that the product is free from synthetic additives.
This case highlights increasing consumer scrutiny and litigation targeting clean-label food marketing, especially around the use of synthetic preservatives disguised under vague or undefined terms like “natural.”
Relief Sought: Class certification, statutory and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, corrective labeling, and attorneys’ fees for violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, as well as breach of express warranty.
11. Ice Cream Chain’s “Natural Flavors” Claim Disputed Over Artificial Flavoring
Plaintiff: Morgan Hendrix
Defendant: Handels Enterprises, Inc.
Product Focus: Handels Homemade Ice Cream (Black Cherry Flavor)
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Handels falsely labeled its Black Cherry ice cream as containing only “Natural Flavors” when it actually includes artificial flavoring, misleading consumers seeking all-natural products.
Plaintiff Morgan Hendrix argues that the term “Natural Flavors” on the packaging leads consumers to reasonably believe the ice cream contains only flavoring derived from natural sources such as real fruit or botanical extracts. However, the complaint alleges that chemical analyses reveal the presence of artificial flavoring agents, which are manufactured synthetically and do not occur in nature.
This misrepresentation, according to the complaint, gives Handels an unfair marketing advantage in the competitive premium ice cream and dessert space, allowing it to appeal to clean-label shoppers who prioritize natural ingredients. The lawsuit underscores increased consumer demand for transparency and accuracy in flavor-related claims.
Relief Sought: The plaintiff seeks class certification, actual and statutory damages, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
12. “All Natural” Canada Dry Sparkling Water Allegedly Contains Synthetic Additives
Plaintiff: Maral Joukjian
Defendant: Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.
Product Focus: Canada Dry Sparkling Seltzer Water (All Flavors)
Summary:
Filed in the Central District of California, this class action claims that Dr Pepper/Seven Up deceptively markets its Canada Dry Sparkling Water as “All Natural” despite containing synthetic citric acid and potassium benzoate, both of which serve preservative and acidity regulation functions.
Plaintiff Maral Joukjian alleges that the presence of these synthetic ingredients contradicts the product’s “All Natural” labeling and misleads health-conscious consumers who are willing to pay a premium for clean-label beverages. The complaint highlights that citric acid is typically manufactured through fermentation processes involving genetically modified microorganisms, while potassium benzoate is an FDA-recognized chemical preservative.
This case adds to the growing wave of litigation targeting natural claims in beverage marketing, particularly as consumers increasingly seek transparency around processing methods and ingredient sourcing.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, statutory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, along with breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
13. “Plant-Based” Supplement Allegedly Contains Animal-Derived Ingredients
Plaintiff: Molly Kopels
Defendant: Evig, LLC (d/b/a Just Thrive)
Product Focus: Just Thrive Vegan Omega-3 Supplement
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of Illinois, this class action accuses Evig, LLC of misleading consumers by marketing its “Just Thrive Vegan Omega-3” as a fully plant-based supplement while allegedly using animal-derived gelatin in the capsules.
Plaintiff Molly Kopels claims that she purchased the product based on its representation as “100% vegan” and “plant-based.” However, third-party lab testing allegedly revealed the presence of gelatin, which is commonly sourced from animal collagen. The complaint asserts that this misrepresentation is particularly harmful to consumers who follow a vegan lifestyle and rely on labeling to make informed ethical and dietary decisions.
This case underscores increasing legal risk for dietary supplement brands making vegan, plant-based, or cruelty-free claims, particularly as consumers and advocacy groups scrutinize sourcing transparency and third-party testing.
Relief Sought: Class certification, monetary damages, restitution, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
14. Fruit Snack Promotion Allegedly Misleads Consumers with Undelivered Free Book Offer
Plaintiff: Jennifer Lesko
Defendant: General Mills, Inc. and Lostmy.Name Ltd d/b/a Wonderbly
Product Focus: Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks
Summary:
Filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, this class action alleges that General Mills and its promotional partner Wonderbly falsely advertised a “free book” promotion on Mott’s Fruit Snacks. The packaging claimed purchasers would receive a personalized book “worth over $35” by redeeming a code online. However, consumers like Jennifer Lesko were allegedly redirected to a page offering only a 40% discount, contrary to the advertised promotion.
The complaint claims that the promotional campaign was terminated prematurely without adequate notice, despite the packaging and advertising still promoting the free book offer. Plaintiff alleges that this misrepresentation caused consumers to overpay for the product, thinking they were receiving a higher-value bonus item.
The case underscores the litigation risk around CPG marketing campaigns, particularly on-pack promotions and digital redemption offers, where failure to deliver the promised benefit can give rise to UCL and FAL claims.
Relief Sought: Class certification, actual and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and corrective advertising, asserting violations of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.
15. “No Sugar Added” Juice Label Allegedly Misleading Due to Naturally Occurring Sugars
Plaintiff: Tracey Luxton
Defendant: Bb Company, LLC
Product Focus: Apple & Eve 100% Juice (No Sugar Added)
Summary:
Filed in the Southern District of New York, this class action alleges that Bb Company, LLC falsely markets its Apple & Eve juice as having “No Sugar Added” when the juice contains high levels of naturally occurring sugars, misleading consumers about the product’s healthfulness.
Plaintiff Tracey Luxton argues that the packaging leads consumers to believe the juice is healthier or contains less sugar than competing products, when in reality, it contains substantial amounts of sugar from the fruit itself. The complaint further alleges that this labeling violates FDA regulations, which require a disclosure statement when a product’s sugar content is not low and no sugar is added.
The lawsuit emphasizes growing regulatory and consumer scrutiny surrounding sugar-related claims in fruit-based beverages, especially where implied health benefits are contradicted by nutritional content.
Relief Sought: Class certification, statutory and actual damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
16. “Zero Sugar” Soda Allegedly Contains Hidden Sweeteners, Misleading Consumers
Plaintiff: Maria Moledina
Defendant: Zevia PBC
Product Focus: Zevia Zero Calorie Soda (All Flavors)
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Zevia misleads consumers by labeling its sodas as “Zero Sugar” while failing to clearly disclose that the beverages are sweetened with stevia and contain significant levels of erythritol, a sugar alcohol.
Plaintiff Maria Moledina contends that health-conscious consumers are led to believe the products are free from any sweeteners when, in fact, erythritol has been linked in recent studies to potential health risks, including cardiovascular concerns. The complaint further argues that Zevia benefits from the growing demand for no-sugar, clean-label beverages by positioning its products as healthier alternatives without adequately clarifying the presence and quantity of erythritol.
This case highlights increasing litigation risk for beverage companies making “zero sugar” or “natural sweetener” claims, particularly when those claims may obscure the use of ingredients that raise health-related questions or require clearer disclosure under FDA guidelines.
Relief Sought: Class certification, monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for alleged violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, along with breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
17. “No Sugar Added” Chocolate Allegedly Deceptive Due to Sugar Alcohol Content
Plaintiff: Sepideh Noohi
Defendant: The Hershey Company
Product Focus: Lily’s No Sugar Added Chocolate Products
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that The Hershey Company deceptively markets its Lily’s brand chocolate as “No Sugar Added” without disclosing the presence of sugar alcohols like erythritol, which are used as sweeteners.
Plaintiff Sepideh Noohi claims that consumers are misled into believing that the products are free from all sweeteners or sugars, when in fact they contain substantial amounts of erythritol—an ingredient associated with metabolic effects and potential health concerns. The lawsuit further argues that FDA regulations require a disclosure statement when such claims are made, especially if the product is not low in calories or sugar alcohols.
This case reinforces ongoing litigation trends targeting “no sugar added” and “zero sugar” claims on confectionery and snack foods, especially where the sugar reduction is offset by sugar alcohols that consumers may wish to avoid.
Relief Sought: Class certification, actual and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
18. Vitamin C Gummies Allegedly Mislead on Dosage and Serving Size
Plaintiff: Tamika Nyman
Defendant: NHS US LLC (Nature’s Bounty)
Product Focus: Nature’s Bounty Vitamin C Gummies
Summary:
Filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, this class action alleges that Nature’s Bounty misleads consumers by labeling its Vitamin C Gummies with “80 Gummies” and “250 mg per serving” on the front panel, causing consumers to believe that each gummy contains 250 mg of Vitamin C. In reality, the serving size is two gummies—meaning each gummy contains only 125 mg and the bottle contains only 40 servings. The complaint alleges this labeling misleads consumers about the product’s dosage, supply quantity, and value.
The complaint emphasizes that key serving size disclosures appear only in fine print on the back, in contrast to similar products from competitors that clearly state “40-day supply” or per-gummy dosages on the front label. The lawsuit invokes New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and alleges violations of state packaging and labeling regulations.
Relief Sought: Class certification, actual damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, including corrective labeling, for violations of New York consumer protection statutes and regulatory labeling requirements.
19. “No Preservatives” Claim on Canned Corn Allegedly Misleading Due to Citric Acid Content
Plaintiff: Sarah Oh
Defendant: Seneca Foods Corporation
Product Focus: Seneca Foods No Salt Added Whole Kernel Canned Corn
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this proposed class action alleges that Seneca Foods misleadingly labels its canned corn as containing “No Preservatives” despite listing citric acid as an ingredient. Plaintiff Sarah Oh contends that citric acid is widely recognized—and used—as a preservative, and its presence renders the “No Preservatives” claim false and deceptive under consumer protection laws.
The complaint emphasizes that consumers are increasingly avoiding preservatives due to health concerns, and that claims like “No Preservatives” influence purchasing decisions. Plaintiff also references FDA guidance, industry standards, and consumer surveys to support the assertion that citric acid is commonly perceived as a preservative.
Relief Sought: Class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
20. “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” Label on Triscuit Crackers Allegedly Deceptive Due to Ingredient Substitution
Plaintiff: Kristen Pearson
Defendant: Mondelēz Global LLC
Product Focus: Triscuit Original Whole Grain Wheat Crackers
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Mondelēz deceptively labels Triscuit crackers as containing “No High Fructose Corn Syrup,” while using maltodextrin and other processed ingredients that are similar in function and nutritional profile to high fructose corn syrup. Plaintiff Kristen Pearson contends that this claim misleads health-conscious consumers into believing the product is free of highly processed sugars.
The complaint argues that the label exploits consumer confusion and that maltodextrin—often derived from corn and used as a sweetener—functions similarly to high fructose corn syrup in processed foods. The suit asserts violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
Relief Sought: Class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, on behalf of California consumers misled by the labeling claims.
21. “No Artificial Flavors” Claim on Crown Royal Whisky Allegedly Deceptive
Plaintiff: Stephanie Pusateri
Defendant: Diageo North America, Inc.
Product Focus: Crown Royal Whisky – Apple, Peach, and Vanilla Flavored Varieties
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Diageo falsely markets its flavored Crown Royal whiskies as containing “No Artificial Flavors” despite using synthetic flavoring agents such as ethyl vanillin and other lab-created compounds. Plaintiff Stephanie Pusateri claims these ingredients are chemically manufactured and not derived from natural sources, contradicting the product’s front-label representations.
The complaint underscores that consumers increasingly seek out clean-label products and are willing to pay a premium for those made without artificial additives. The plaintiff contends that Diageo’s labeling violates consumer trust and federal standards, as well as California’s consumer protection statutes.
Relief Sought: Class certification, injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as common law fraud and unjust enrichment.
22. Dove Body Wash with “MicroMoisture” Allegedly Misleads About Moisturizing Claims
Plaintiff: Susan Roberts
Defendant: Unilever United States, Inc.
Product Focus: Dove Deep Moisture Body Wash and similar Dove body wash products
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action claims that Unilever deceptively markets Dove body wash products using terms like “Deep Moisture,” “#1 Dermatologist Recommended,” and “MicroMoisture” to imply superior moisturizing effects. Plaintiff Susan Roberts alleges that in reality, these products contain common surfactants (such as sodium lauroyl isethionate and cocamidopropyl betaine) that strip the skin of natural oils and do not provide the moisturization claimed.
The complaint further alleges that the marketing misleads reasonable consumers into believing Dove body wash actively nourishes and hydrates the skin, when it performs no better than conventional soap or competing products without such claims. The suit asserts violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL.
Relief Sought: Class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, on behalf of consumers who purchased Dove body wash based on misleading advertising.
23. “Brain + Body Nutrition” Bars Allegedly Mislead on Functional Ingredient Claims
Plaintiff: Jasmine Shahinian
Defendant: IQBAR Inc.
Product Focus: IQBAR Protein Bars (various flavors)
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this proposed class action alleges that IQBAR falsely advertises its protein bars as delivering specific functional benefits for the “brain and body,” including improved cognition, clarity, focus, and mood, without competent scientific substantiation. Plaintiff Jasmine Shahinian claims these representations—alongside terms like “Brain + Body Nutrition” and ingredient callouts such as lion’s mane, omega-3s, and flavonoids—are intended to create the impression that consuming the bars will provide clinically proven mental performance benefits.
The complaint alleges that these claims amount to unlawful structure/function representations under FDA regulations and that reasonable consumers are misled into purchasing the products based on unfounded health benefit claims.
Relief Sought: Class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, actual and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees, asserting violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
24. “No Sugar Added” Claim on Apple Juice Allegedly Deceptive for Diabetic Consumers
Plaintiff: Robert Sheppard
Defendant: Mott’s LLP
Product Focus: Mott’s 100% Apple Juice
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Mott’s misleadingly markets its apple juice as having “No Sugar Added,” which could deceive diabetic consumers into believing the product is sugar-free or low in sugar. Plaintiff Robert Sheppard, who has Type 2 diabetes, claims he purchased the juice under the impression that it would not significantly impact his blood sugar levels.
The complaint highlights that although no sugar is added, the juice naturally contains high levels of sugar from fruit, approximately 24g per serving. It argues that the “No Sugar Added” label fails to adequately warn consumers, particularly those with health conditions, that the juice still has a high sugar content. The case raises issues under California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as federal labeling rules.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, statutory and actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, claiming violations of state consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
25. “No Sugar Added” Label on Frappuccino Allegedly Misleads About Total Sugar Content
Plaintiff: Kelly Strauss
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation
Product Focus: Starbucks Bottled Frappuccino Coffee Drink – Vanilla Flavor
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this proposed class action alleges that Starbucks misleads consumers by labeling its Vanilla Bottled Frappuccino as having “No Sugar Added” despite containing high levels of naturally occurring sugars—approximately 33 grams per bottle. Plaintiff Kelly Strauss, a diabetic consumer, claims she was misled into believing the product was sugar-free or significantly lower in sugar, and purchased it expecting it to be safe for diabetic consumption.
The complaint emphasizes that the “No Sugar Added” claim, without proper qualification, violates both federal labeling regulations and consumer expectations, especially for health-conscious individuals and those managing diabetes. It alleges that Starbucks failed to include the required disclosure that the product is not low in calories.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, statutory and actual damages, and attorneys’ fees, based on violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, FAL, and federal labeling laws.
26. “No Preservatives” Claim on Chips Allegedly Misleads Consumers Due to Citric Acid Content
Plaintiff: Alyssa Tackett
Defendant: Wise Foods, Inc.
Product Focus: Wise Branded Potato Chips
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action alleges that Wise Foods falsely markets its potato chips as containing “No Preservatives” despite listing citric acid as an ingredient. Plaintiff Alyssa Tackett contends that citric acid functions as a preservative by inhibiting spoilage and bacterial growth, and that its presence renders the “No Preservatives” claim deceptive.
The lawsuit points out that citric acid is widely recognized and used in the food industry as a preservative, and that Wise’s labeling misleads consumers into believing the chips are free from synthetic or chemical preservatives. The complaint asserts violations of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), along with breach of warranty.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, statutory and actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
27. Great Value Oatmeal Allegedly Misleads with “No Preservatives” Claim Due to Citric Acid Use
Plaintiff: Marilyn Thomas
Defendant: Walmart Inc.
Product Focus: Great Value Oatmeal (various flavors including Apple Cinnamon)
Summary:
Filed in the Northern District of California, this class action claims that Walmart falsely labels its Great Value branded oatmeal as containing “No Preservatives,” while the ingredient list includes citric acid, a substance known to function as a preservative. Plaintiff Marilyn Thomas argues that consumers reasonably interpret “No Preservatives” to mean that the product is free of chemical additives used to extend shelf life.
The complaint emphasizes that citric acid inhibits microbial growth and is widely recognized in the food industry as a preservative, contradicting the front-label claim. The lawsuit alleges that Walmart’s labeling practices deceive health-conscious consumers and violate federal and California consumer protection laws.
Relief Sought: Class certification, restitution, actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, citing violations of the CLRA,FAL, UCL, and common law misrepresentation and warranty.
What is a Class Action?
A class action is a type of lawsuit where one or more plaintiffs file on behalf of a larger group with similar claims. In the food and beverage sector, class actions often arise from misleading labels, deceptive advertising, or non-compliant ingredients. These lawsuits can result in major financial penalties and brand damage. Proactively monitoring compliance and emerging litigation trends is essential to reducing risk.
For more insights or to receive any of the full complaints, contact us at [email protected].
