The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during June 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.Case Summary: Ansari v. Joe & The Juice New York LLC

PLAINTIFFS: Neda Ansari, Malcolm Brooks, Vy Le, Annabelle Pulver, Usra Salim, and Dana Whitten

DEFENDANTS: Joe & The Juice New York LLC and Joe & The Juice US Holdings, Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS:
 Juice products marketed as containing olive oil but primarily made with canola oil.

SUMMARY:

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Joe & The Juice New York LLC and its parent company Joe & The Juice US Holdings, Inc., alleging that they falsely advertised their juice products as containing olive oil, when in fact the products consist of approximately 95% canola oil and only 5% olive oil. The complaint accuses the company of misleading consumers through a health-conscious branding strategy that emphasizes wellness, transparency, and quality ingredients, while omitting the truth about the actual oil composition of its products. The plaintiffs argue that the company’s representation of these juice products is deceptive and in violation of New York consumer protection laws, including General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. They cite marketing materials and statements from Joe & The Juice’s CEO positioning the brand as a lifestyle company grounded in natural and nutritious offerings. Plaintiffs contend that this branding is incompatible with the use of highly refined seed oils like canola oil, which are widely viewed as less healthy and are significantly cheaper than olive oil.

The lawsuit notes that neither the front labels nor marketing communications disclose the use of canola oil as the dominant ingredient. Plaintiffs allege that they were induced to purchase the juices and pay a premium based on the false impression that they contained meaningful amounts of olive oil. They claim that had the true composition been disclosed, they either would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing the named plaintiffs as class representatives and their attorneys as class counsel. They seek monetary and statutory damages, including $50 per transaction under GBL § 349 and $500 per transaction under GBL § 350. Plaintiffs further seek treble damages and punitive damages for knowing and willful misconduct, as well as reimbursement for attorneys’ fees, expert costs, litigation expenses, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

2. Case Summary – Arres v. Langer Juice Company, Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Hattie K. Arres

DEFENDANT: Langer Juice Company, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive
PRODUCT FOCUS: Langer 100% Juice products

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Hattie K. Arres alleges that Langer Juice Company falsely advertises its products as “100% Juice” or “100% Pure Juice,” even though they contain additional ingredients such as citric acid, xanthan gum, acacia gum, natural flavors, and other additives inconsistent with consumers’ expectations of a product labeled as pure juice. The complaint asserts that these representations are misleading and designed to induce consumers into paying a premium for what they believe are purely juice-based beverages. Arres claims the deceptive labeling has affected consumers in California and nationwide. She seeks monetary relief for the price premium paid, disgorgement of profits, and an injunction to halt the allegedly deceptive marketing practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff seeks class certification, appointment as class representative and counsel, a declaration that Defendant’s conduct violates California law, and an injunction to prevent further misleading advertising. She also requests restitution and disgorgement of profits, corrective advertising, destruction of deceptive materials, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate.

3. Barreca v. Ken’s Foods Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Judi Barreca

DEFENDANT: Ken’s Foods Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: Simply Vinaigrette Italian dressing (specifically the “No Artificial Preservatives” and “No Artificial Flavors” claims on the label).

SUMMARY:
 Judi Barreca brings this class action against Ken’s Foods Inc. for deceptively labeling its Simply Vinaigrette Italian dressing as having “No Artificial Flavors” and “No Artificial Preservatives.” Plaintiff alleges that, despite these claims, the product contains xanthan gum, a synthetic and non-natural additive produced through industrial fermentation and extensive chemical processing. The complaint provides historical context on the shift from natural to industrial food production, outlines the dangers of synthetic preservatives, and references consumer expectations and regulatory standards to argue that such additives are inconsistent with “natural” product claims.

Barreca contends that the labeling is misleading given xanthan gum’s status as a synthetic ingredient that functions, among other things, as a preservative. She highlights how consumers are willing to pay more to avoid such additives and base their purchasing decisions on marketing claims. As such, the lawsuit accuses Ken’s Foods of violating consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose the use of such ingredients and profiting from consumer deception.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
 Plaintiff seeks certification of the class action, appointment of herself as class representative, and actual damages for class members. The complaint explicitly excludes statutory penalties, full-value damages, or punitive damages from the relief sought. Instead, it emphasizes restitution for the economic harm suffered by consumers who relied on misleading labels when purchasing the product.

4. Case Summary: Emilie Baum v. Frito-Lay, Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Emilie Baum

DEFENDANTS: Frito-Lay, Inc., and DOES 1 through 50
PRODUCT FOCUS: SunChips brand snacks, including Original, Harvest Cheddar, Garden Salsa, Honey BBQ, French Onion, Peppercorn Ranch, Sweet Potato & Brown Sugar, and Monterey Jack & Sundried Tomato

SUMMARY:
 Emilie Baum brings this class action lawsuit against Frito-Lay for allegedly misleading consumers by labeling its SunChips snack products as containing “100% Whole Grain.” Despite this claim, the snacks contain maltodextrin, a highly processed ingredient derived from corn starch. According to the complaint, maltodextrin is not considered whole grain by any standard and its inclusion contradicts the promise that all grain ingredients in the products are whole. The lawsuit asserts that consumers are deceived into believing they are purchasing healthier, whole grain snacks, when in fact the presence of maltodextrin dilutes the whole grain content. Baum argues that this misrepresentation inflates consumer purchases and pricing. She further alleges that had consumers, including herself, been properly informed, they would not have bought the product or would have paid significantly less. As a result, consumers were misled, overpaid, and were denied the benefit of truthful labeling.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
 The Plaintiff seeks certification of the class action and appointment of herself and her counsel to represent the class. She requests that the Court declare Frito-Lay’s conduct unlawful and grant restitution or equitable relief for unjust enrichment and deceptive practices. The relief sought includes compensatory damages, nominal, punitive, and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

5. Beal et al. v. MW Polar Foods Corporation

PLAINTIFFS: Beverly Beal and Courtney Whetstone

DEFENDANT: MW Polar Foods Corporation

PRODUCT FOCUS: MW Polar’s canned salmon fillet in brine and juice, marketed as having a natural pink color

SUMMARY:
 This class action alleges that MW Polar Foods Corporation deceptively markets its farm-raised canned salmon as naturally pink, despite the color being the result of synthetic additives like astaxanthin or canthaxanthin added to the fish feed. Plaintiffs argue that consumers are misled into believing the salmon’s color is natural and reflective of wild-caught fish, when in fact the fish is farm-raised and artificially colored.

The salmon industry has shifted largely to aquaculture, especially in response to dwindling wild salmon populations. The plaintiffs highlight that farmed salmon would be gray or white without artificial coloring. They allege MW Polar’s failure to disclose this color additive on its labeling violates various state consumer protection statutes and constitutes misrepresentation.

Claims are brought under California and New York consumer protection laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
 Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23, a declaration that MW Polar’s conduct violated the law, monetary and statutory damages, restitution, equitable relief, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

6. Blackett v. Vital Amine Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Camilla Blackett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
DEFENDANT: Vital Amine Inc.
PRODUCT FOCUS: Ora Organic Daily Superfood protein supplements

SUMMARY:
 Camilla Blackett filed a class action lawsuit against Vital Amine Inc., alleging that the company falsely advertises the protein content and quality of its Ora Organic Daily Superfood supplements. According to the complaint, the products are marketed as providing “23[.]grams Protein” without disclosing that the stated amount is not based on the product’s actual protein quality. The plaintiff contends that the products use vegan protein sources that do not offer the same nutritional benefits as whey protein and that the front-of-label protein claims are misleading because they omit the percent daily value (%DV), which would reveal the inferior quality of the protein used. Consumers, motivated by these claims, paid a premium for a product that failed to deliver its advertised nutritional value. The plaintiff alleges that this misrepresentation caused financial harm and seeks restitution and damages on behalf of the proposed class.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
 Plaintiff seeks certification of the class under Rule 23, appointment of herself as representative and her attorneys as Class Counsel, and a judgment in favor of the class on all counts. She requests actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages as determined by the Court or jury; restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; and an award for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit.

7. Class Action Summary: Amanda Bond v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Amanda Bond
DEFENDANTS: El Pollo Loco, Inc. and El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.
PRODUCT FOCUS: Various menu items including burritos, tacos, quesadillas, and bowls advertised as containing white meat chicken.

ALLEGATIONS SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Amanda Bond alleges that El Pollo Loco deceptively marketed certain food items as being made with white meat chicken, when in fact they were prepared with less expensive dark meat. The complaint identifies specific products, such as the Chipotle Chicken Avocado Burrito and Chicken Avocado Taco, and claims that the advertising, menu images, and in-store signage falsely implied they were made with white meat. Bond asserts that she and other consumers relied on these representations when deciding to purchase the items, and that El Pollo Loco’s failure to disclose the use of dark meat constitutes a misleading business practice.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the class and appointing herself and her attorneys as Class Representative and Class Counsel; restitution and benefit-of-the-bargain damages; costs of suit; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from advertising items with images or language implying they contain white meat when they do not, subjecting customers to upcharges based on those representations, and engaging in any further misleading conduct. She also seeks any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

8. Misleading Labeling of Olly Sleep Gummies Prompts Class Action Over Serving Size and Dosage Claims

PLAINTIFF: Timothy Cantwell
DEFENDANT: Olly Public Benefit Corporation
PRODUCT FOCUS: Olly “Extra Strength Sleep” gummies labeled as containing “5 mg Melatonin” and “50 Gummies”

SUMMARY:
 Timothy Cantwell filed a class action lawsuit against Olly Public Benefit Corporation in New York Supreme Court, alleging that Olly misled consumers by labeling its melatonin gummy supplements as containing “50 Gummies” with “5 mg Melatonin.” The complaint explains that although the label implies each of the 50 gummies contains 5 mg of melatonin, the serving size listed in the Supplement Facts requires two gummies to deliver 5 mg. As a result, consumers only receive 25 effective doses—not 50 as reasonably expected.

The suit accuses Olly of misbranding under New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law by failing to disclose the actual number of effective servings per container. The plaintiff argues that this deceptive packaging misleads consumers into believing they are getting double the quantity of melatonin than what is actually provided. The complaint also compares Olly’s practices to other brands like GNC, which clearly state the number of servings on the label. Due to the misrepresentations, the product is allegedly sold at a premium price that would be unjustified if properly labeled.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiff seeks a declaration certifying the case as a proper class action, naming Plaintiff as representative and counsel for the Class. Plaintiff further seeks actual damages—excluding statutory penalties, minimum recovery amounts, or punitive damages—as permitted by law.

9. Gruns Nutrition Hit with Class Action Over Allegedly Misleading Nutritional Claims on Kids’ Gummies

PLAINTIFFS: Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins and Yolanda Pitre

DEFENDANT: Gruns Nutrition, Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: Superfoods Greens Gummies sold under the “Gruns” brand, including: Gruns Adults (Low Sugar) Gruns Adults (Sugar-Free) Gruns Kids (Low Sugar and Sugar-Free)

SUMMARY:
 Plaintiffs Patricia Cavallaro-Kearins and Yolanda Pitre filed a class action in the Southern District of New York against Gruns Nutrition, Inc., alleging deceptive marketing practices related to its Gruns-branded “Superfoods Greens Gummies.” The products were advertised as providing comprehensive daily nutrition and support for GLP-1 users, but plaintiffs claim the gummies lack key macronutrients (like protein and fat) and critical micronutrients (such as iron, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids). The lawsuit challenges the claim that the gummies are a complete substitute for real food and asserts that consumers were misled into paying a premium price based on these false representations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, treble damages exceeding $5 million, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, civil penalties, declaratory and equitable relief, an injunction to halt the misleading marketing, reimbursement of litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed proper by the court.

10. Perla Cham and Eric Reichert v. Quest Nutrition, LLC

PLAINTIFFS: Perla Cham and Eric Reichert

DEFENDANT: Quest Nutrition, LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Quest food and beverage products packaged in Tetra Pak aseptic cartons, advertised as “recyclable.”

SUMMARY:
 Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action against Quest Nutrition, LLC, alleging the company engaged in deceptive and misleading environmental marketing, commonly referred to as “greenwashing.” Specifically, Quest labeled and marketed its products—packaged in Tetra Pak aseptic cartons—as “recyclable,” despite the fact that such cartons were not actually recyclable in California during the relevant statutory period. Plaintiffs claim these representations were false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading under California law. The proposed class includes all California residents who purchased these products during the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs seek to certify the class and obtain injunctive relief, restitution, and monetary damages, including the costs of suit. They assert violations of the California Business and Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17200, which prohibit false advertising and unfair business practices.

PRAYER OF RELIEF:
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed class, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel, declare that Defendant’s conduct violates applicable statutes and laws, and issue an order requiring Defendant to correct, destroy, and cease all false and/or misleading labeling. Plaintiffs further seek a finding in their favor and on behalf of the Class, an award of restitution, disgorgement of profits, equitable monetary relief, prejudgment interest, public injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of suit, as well as any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

11. Rick Chavez v. EHPLabs, LLC dba Blessed Protein

PLAINTIFF: Rick Chavez
DEFENDANT: EHPLabs, LLC dba Blessed Protein
PRODUCT FOCUS: Blessed Plant Protein powder

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff Rick Chavez, on behalf of a proposed class, filed this action against EHPLabs, LLC dba Blessed Protein, alleging that the labeling on its “Blessed Plant Protein” products is deceptive. Specifically, the front of the product labels claims each serving contains 23 grams of protein, but they fail to disclose the corrected amount based on the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), as required by FDA regulations. Because the product uses pea protein, which has a PDCAAS significantly lower than 1.0, the actual usable protein is lower than advertised. Chavez alleges that the omission of this corrected value misleads consumers into believing they are receiving fully bioavailable, high-quality protein. He argues that reasonable consumers rely on front-label representations and Nutrition Facts panels for accurate information. The complaint further alleges that this misleading labeling allowed Defendant to charge a premium for the product. Plaintiff claims economic injury and seeks relief under California’s CLRA and other consumer protection laws.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiff Rick Chavez respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed class and declare that Defendant EHPLabs, LLC violated the CLRA, was unjustly enriched, and/or breached implied warranties. Plaintiff further seeks actual, compensatory, or statutory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, along with injunctive relief to halt the alleged unlawful practices and require a corrective advertising campaign. Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

12. Annette Cody v. Gainful Health Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Annette Cody
DEFENDANT: Gainful Health Inc., a Delaware company
PRODUCT FOCUS: Gainful Protein Powder

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff Annette Cody brings this action against Gainful Health Inc. for allegedly engaging in deceptive packaging practices regarding its protein powder product. The complaint alleges that the Defendant sells the product in opaque, oversized packaging that contains substantial nonfunctional “slack fill,” misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The complaint argues that this practice constitutes false advertising and unfair competition under California law. Plaintiff asserts that she and other consumers were harmed by these practices and seeks injunctive and monetary relief. Notably, Plaintiff brings the case as an individual action but reserves the right to amend the complaint to assert claims on behalf of a class if Defendant fails to take corrective action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment and relief on all causes of action, including an order requiring Defendant to add a conspicuous “fill line” to the front of the Product’s packaging sold in California; an award of actual, statutory, and punitive damages; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and all other relief at law or in equity that the Court may deem just and proper.

13.  Makia Daniel v. Lasco Foods Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Makia Daniel

DEFENDANT: Lasco Foods Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: Classic Italian Salad Dressing under the Hendrickson’s brand, labeled as “Preservative Free”

SUMMARY:
This class action lawsuit challenges Lasco Foods Inc.’s marketing of its Hendrickson’s brand Classic Italian Salad Dressing as “Preservative Free.” Plaintiff Makia Daniel argues that the product is deceptively labeled because it contains citric acid, which the complaint describes as a synthetic chemical functioning as a preservative. The plaintiff draws from historical and consumer health perspectives, alleging that misleading consumers about the presence of synthetic additives, especially preservatives, violates the Agriculture and Markets Law § 201(1). Citric acid is characterized in the complaint as industrially produced and inconsistent with consumer expectations for natural or non-artificial ingredients, particularly where a product is expressly marketed as free of preservatives.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:
Plaintiff seeks a jury trial and requests the Court to declare the lawsuit a proper class action, certifying Plaintiff as the class representative and appointing Plaintiff’s counsel to represent the class. Additionally, Plaintiff demands actual damages but clarifies that these damages should not constitute a penalty nor be constrained by a statutory maximum or minimum. Plaintiff does not request full value or punitive damages unless otherwise permitted by statute.

14. Fenty v. PepsiCo Inc. – Class Action Alleging Misbranding of “100% Natural” Juice

PLAINTIFF: Kisha Fenty

DEFENDANT PepsiCo Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: Ceres 100% Juice Blend

SUMMARY:

Kisha Fenty brings a class action lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc., alleging that the company misbranded its Ceres juice products as “100% Natural,” despite containing a synthetic form of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The complaint asserts that the label leads consumers to believe the juice contains only natural ingredients, a claim that is both false and misleading. The suit highlights that consumers increasingly seek out “natural” foods, motivated by health, environmental, and ethical considerations. “Natural” in this context is commonly understood to exclude synthetic or artificial substances.

The complaint explains that although ascorbic acid can occur naturally in fruits, the version used in the Ceres products is synthetically derived through a chemical process involving genetically modified corn and synthetic reagents. According to the plaintiff, this misrepresentation allows PepsiCo to charge a premium price—approximately $4.49—for a product that would otherwise be valued lower if accurately marketed. The complaint references consumer perception studies and economic analysis tools (e.g., conjoint analysis) to support damages tied to consumer overpayment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial on all issues and seeks a declaration that this case is a proper class action, with Kisha Fenty appointed as the class representative and her counsel appointed as class counsel. Plaintiff further seeks an award of actual damages to the class, excluding any penalties, minimum or maximum statutory damages, or punitive damages prohibited by law. The damages sought reflect the monetary value lost by consumers who purchased the product based on misleading “100% Natural” claims, which induced them to pay more than the product was truly worth.

15.  Nicole Flick v. Archon Vitamin LLC dba PlantFusion

PLAINTIFF: Nicole Flick

DEFENDANT: Archon Vitamin LLC dba PlantFusion

PRODUCT FOCUS: PlantFusion Organic Mushrooms + Protein Powder.

SUMMARY:

The lawsuit alleges that the PlantFusion protein powder is deceptively labeled and falsely advertised. Specifically, the complaint claims the product uses plant proteins with low PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score) values, which do not provide the full amount of bioavailable protein as implied. The label fails to include a PDCAAS-adjusted %DRV and misleads consumers into believing they are receiving higher nutritional value than they are. Plaintiff asserts that this misrepresentation caused consumers to overpay for a product that does not deliver on its nutritional claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the class, declare that Defendant violated the CLRA and was unjustly enriched and/or breached an express warranty, and order an award of actual, compensatory, or statutory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief under applicable law to stop Defendant from continuing the alleged unlawful practices and to require corrective advertising. Additionally, Plaintiff requests an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest on any awarded amounts, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

16. Melissa Furman v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC:

PLAINTIF: Melissa Furman,

DEFENDANT: Arizona Beverages USA, LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Arizona brand fruit snacks

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff alleges that Arizona Beverages falsely labeled its fruit snack products as containing “no preservatives” despite containing citric acid and ascorbic acid, which function as chemical preservatives according to the FDA and USDA. The complaint asserts that this misrepresentation misled consumers into purchasing the product under false pretenses, believing they were receiving preservative-free food. As a result, consumers, including Plaintiff, were deprived of the benefit of their bargain, paid a premium price, and were exposed to preservatives they intended to avoid.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the Class and Sub-Class and appoint Plaintiff as Representative, and certify her attorneys as Class Counsel. Plaintiff also seeks an order requiring the Defendant to engage in corrective advertising regarding the misbranding of the products, an award of actual damages or restitution for all funds paid by Plaintiff and the Class for misbranded products, and punitive damages as determined by the Court. In addition, Plaintiff seeks all statutory enhanced damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further legal or equitable relief the Court deems just and proper.

17. Hall v. T. Marzetti Company

PLAINTIFF: Steven Hall

DEFENDANT: T. Marzetti Company

PRODUCT FOCUS: Marzetti Sweet Italian Dressing (12 oz. bottle)

SUMMARY:

In a class action complaint filed in New York Supreme Court, Plaintiff Steven Hall alleges that T. Marzetti Company misbranded its Sweet Italian Dressing by falsely labeling it as containing “No Preservatives,” despite including xanthan gum—an artificial or synthetic ingredient that, according to the complaint, functions as a preservative by preventing deterioration and extending shelf life. The complaint details the historical and scientific context behind consumer aversion to preservatives, citing studies showing that most Americans prefer preservative-free products and are willing to pay a premium for them. Plaintiff contends that Marzetti’s “No Preservatives” claim misled consumers into believing the product was free of such additives, depriving them of the benefit of the bargain and causing them to pay a higher price for what was marketed as a cleaner, healthier product. The lawsuit seeks class certification and actual damages but expressly excludes any statutory penalties or punitive damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues and seeks: (1) to declare this a proper class action, certifying Plaintiff as representative and the undersigned as Counsel for the Class; and (2) actual damages, but neither (a) a penalty, nor minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute, which may be prohibited, (b) full value damages, nor (c) punitive damages.

18. Jeffrey Heavey v. Smart & Final Stores LLC

PLAINTIFF: Jeffrey Heavey

DEFENDANT: Smart & Final Stores LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Various products and their packaging sold by Smart & Final that were labeled or advertised as “recyclable.”

SUMMARY:

Jeffrey Heavey brings this proposed class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated California consumers against Smart & Final Stores LLC, alleging unlawful business practices under California’s consumer protection laws. The case centers on “greenwashing”—specifically, the false, unfair, deceptive, and misleading labeling of Smart & Final’s products and packaging as “recyclable.” Plaintiff claims that the packaging was not actually recyclable under California law and that Smart & Final knew, or should have known, this. The misleading claims allegedly misinformed consumers, many of whom rely on environmental cues in making purchasing decisions, and induced them to buy products they otherwise might not have purchased. The class includes California consumers who purchased the products within the applicable statute of limitations, excluding non-California residents and those who made purchases outside the state. Plaintiff contends that Smart & Final’s conduct violates California’s Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17200, and that consumers paid a price premium as a result of the deceptive labeling. The complaint seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief to halt further dissemination of the allegedly false recyclability claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks judgment against Defendants as follows: for an order certifying the Class; for an order certifying Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel; for an order declaring that Defendants’ conduct violates the statutes and laws referenced in the complaint; for an order requiring Defendants to correct, destroy, and change all false, deceptive, untrue, unlawful, and/or misleading labeling related to the recyclability claims; for an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all causes of action asserted; for prejudgment interest on all awarded amounts; for restitution, disgorgement of profits, and all forms of equitable monetary relief; for public injunctive relief; and for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in prosecuting this action.

19. James v. Primal Nutrition

PLAINTIFF: Caron James

DEFENDANT: Primal Nutrition, LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Primal Kitchen Pure Avocado Oil

SUMMARY:

This class action lawsuit was filed by Caron James against Primal Nutrition, LLC, alleging false and misleading advertising of its Primal Kitchen Pure Avocado Oil. The complaint focuses on two primary claims: first, that the product is falsely advertised as “Pure” and “Pure…Quality…Tested” despite independent EPA-accredited laboratory testing revealing phthalate contamination at 2,774 parts per billion—a level that contradicts the advertised purity and quality claims. Phthalates are harmful chemicals associated with endocrine disruption, obesity, diabetes, and other health risks.

Second, the plaintiff challenges the product’s “Non-GMO Project Verified” label. The complaint argues that this label is misleading because no genetically modified avocado oil exists on the market. Thus, all avocado oils are inherently non-GMO, making the labeling a deceptive marketing tactic designed to convey a false sense of superiority and justify premium pricing. The plaintiff alleges that Primal Nutrition’s use of these representations violates California consumer protection laws, and seeks relief for affected consumers who were misled by these claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed Class and appoint her as Class Representative and her counsel as Class Counsel; award restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment obtained through Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; issue injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing its false advertising practices and requiring corrective advertising; award damages as appropriate and distinct from restitution; grant attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiff and the Class; award pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

20. Jones v. Irwin Naturals

PLAINTIFF: Avi Jones

DEFENDANTS: Irwin Naturals, Inc.; Irwin Naturals, a Nevada Corporation; and Klee Irwin
PRODUCT FOCUS: Irwin Naturals “Stored-Fat Belly Burner” dietary supplement
SUMMARY:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell the “Stored-Fat Belly Burner,” a weight loss supplement purportedly capable of metabolizing stored fat in stubborn areas like the belly, waist, and hips. The product is marketed as containing a “Super Citrus Lipo Burner” and a “clinically researched” formula to stimulate fat breakdown. Plaintiff claims these representations are false and misleading because the ingredients do not have the capacity to safely or effectively increase weight loss, break down stored fat, or metabolize stored fat as advertised. The complaint asserts that Defendants engaged in deceptive marketing across their own website, Amazon product pages, and other channels, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and federal law under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely portrayed the supplement as a safe and effective fat-burning product while failing to meet those representations. She seeks restitution, damages, and injunctive relief to prevent further misleading marketing and sales.

PRAYER OF RELIEF:

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, respectfully requests that the Court certify this matter as a class action and appoint her and her counsel to represent the Class. She seeks an order requiring Defendants to pay $500 in restitution, damages, and interest to her individually; to pay $5 million or more in restitution to the Class; and to award her an incentive award of $10,000 or such amount as the Court deems fair. Plaintiff also requests disgorgement of all profits and benefits obtained through Defendants’ false and misleading advertising and marketing of Belly Burner, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the Class. She further asks the Court to declare that Defendants’ conduct violates the Unfair Competition Law, to enjoin them from engaging in further deceptive practices, and to require a corrective advertising campaign. Finally, she seeks prejudgment and post-judgment interest, an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs of $500,000 or more, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

21. Jue v. IQBAR, Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Jane Jue

DEFENDANT: IQBAR, Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: IQBAR brand plant-based protein bars

SUMMARY:
Plaintiff Jane Jue brings a class action against IQBAR, Inc., alleging deceptive and misleading practices in the marketing and labeling of its plant-based protein bars. According to the complaint, IQBAR advertises its products by highlighting their total protein content on the front label but fails to disclose the “% Daily Value” (%DV) of protein on the Nutrition Facts Panel, as required by FDA regulations when making nutrient content claims. The suit contends that because plant-based proteins typically have lower bioavailability than animal-based proteins, failing to include %DV misleads consumers into believing they are receiving more usable protein than they actually are. IQBAR is accused of formulating its bars with inferior protein sources, thereby reducing their nutritional value while marketing them as premium products. Jue argues that consumers, unaware of the technical distinctions in protein quality, are being misled. The complaint further alleges that this omission violates the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA), California’s Sherman Law, and the California Health & Safety Code. Plaintiff seeks relief for violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.

PRAYER OF RELIEF:

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully seeks judgment against Defendant as follows: an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and designating Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel; an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on all causes of action asserted herein; an award of actual, compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the Court or jury; an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; an award of prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; and an order granting Plaintiff and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action.

22. Christopher Lambert v. Topco Associates, LLC, and DOES 1–10

PLAINTIFF: Christopher Lambert

DEFENDANT: Topco Associates, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10

PRODUCT FOCUS:  Full Circle Market-branded “Macaroni & Cheese” products

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Christopher Lambert, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers, alleges that Topco Associates, LLC falsely and deceptively marketed its Full Circle Market Macaroni & Cheese products. The front of the product packaging clearly claims the absence of artificial flavors, synthetic colors, and preservatives. However, the ingredients list on the back of the packaging discloses citric acid, a widely known artificial preservative. This contradiction, Plaintiff argues, misleads consumers who purchase the product believing it to be free from artificial preservatives and paying a premium for that perceived benefit. These practices are alleged to violate the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and constitute breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff further asserts that the misrepresentations were uniform across all packages and time periods, creating a consistent basis for class claims under Missouri law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court certify this matter as a class action for a Consumer Protection Subclass and/or Missouri Subclass, appoint Plaintiff as class representative and his counsel as class counsel, and enter judgment against Defendants finding them liable under the causes of action asserted, including violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and applicable Consumer Protection Statutes. Plaintiff further seeks an award of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

23. Lofera Legrier v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC

PLAINTIFF:  Lofera Legrier

DEFENDANT:  Dole Packaged Foods LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Dole Whip frozen dessert products

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Lofera Legrier brings this proposed class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Dole Packaged Foods LLC for the misleading labeling and marketing of its Dole Whip frozen desserts. The products prominently state “No Artificial Ingredients” despite containing citric acid, a synthetic compound produced from black mold through a chemical-intensive fermentation process involving genetically modified sugar sources, chemical reactions, and artificial reagents. Consumers increasingly seek natural foods that are free from synthetic substances, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendant capitalized on this trend by falsely promoting Dole Whip as free from artificial ingredients. Citric acid is not expected by consumers in a product labeled as natural and is considered synthetic under New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets. As a result of this misrepresentation, consumers paid a premium price for the product that they would not have otherwise paid. Plaintiff claims that the product is misbranded under state law, and the labeling constitutes deceptive marketing practices that unjustly enriched the Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare this matter a proper class action, certify Plaintiff as the class representative and appoint her counsel as counsel for the class; award actual damages to Plaintiff and class members, excluding statutory penalties, full-value damages, or punitive damages if such are prohibited; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, including attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

24. Jennifer Legrier v. Kraft Heinz Food Company

PLAINTIFF: Jennifer Legrier

DEFENDANT: Kraft Heinz Food Company

PRODUCT FOCUS: Kraft Heinz’s 7.25 oz boxed macaroni and cheese

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Jennifer Legrier brings this proposed class action against Kraft Heinz Food Company on behalf of similarly situated consumers, alleging that the company misrepresents its boxed macaroni and cheese products as free from artificial preservatives. Although the front of the package promises “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes,” the ingredient list includes citric acid—a synthetic substance produced through an industrial fermentation process using genetically modified materials and various chemical reactions. Citric acid serves multiple preservative-like functions in food, including pH reduction, oxidation prevention, flavor stabilization, and bacterial growth inhibition. Plaintiff alleges that Kraft Heinz’s packaging falsely signals to consumers that the product is more natural and healthier than it actually is, leading them to pay a premium under misleading circumstances. The use of citric acid renders the product “misbranded” under New York law and violates consumer protection principles by failing to meet reasonable consumer expectations for a product claiming to be free from artificial preservatives.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF :

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare this matter a proper class action, certify Plaintiff as class representative, and appoint her counsel as class counsel; award actual damages to Plaintiff and the class members, excluding any penalties, statutory minimums, full-value damages, or punitive damages if such are prohibited; and grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

25. Edward Lovera v. Panos Brands LLC

PLAINTIFF: Edward Lovera

DEFENDANT: Panos Brands LLC

PRODUCT FOCUS: Panos Brands LLC’s 12 oz bottles of Italian dressing

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Edward Lovera brings this proposed class action against Panos Brands LLC for false and deceptive labeling practices related to its Italian dressing product. The complaint alleges that Panos Brands misleadingly labels the product as containing “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” even though the ingredient list includes citric acid. While once derived from citrus fruits, today’s citric acid is produced through an industrial process involving black mold and genetically modified corn or beets, making it synthetic and inconsistent with consumer expectations for “natural” or “non-artificial” ingredients. The plaintiff outlines the multiple preservative functions citric acid performs in salad dressings—such as inhibiting microbial spoilage, stabilizing emulsions, and preventing oxidation. These functions belie the label’s promise and result in a misbranded product that commands a higher price than it otherwise would. The inclusion of citric acid contradicts consumer expectations and the product’s explicit claims, rendering the marketing deceptive under applicable New York laws.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court declare this a proper class action, certify Plaintiff as class representative, and appoint the undersigned as counsel for the class; award actual damages to Plaintiff and all similarly situated consumers, excluding any penalties, statutory minimums, full-value damages, or punitive damages to the extent such remedies are prohibited; and grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

26. Judy Oh v. Goosefoot Acres, Inc

PLAINTIFF: Judy Oh

DEFENDANT: Goosefoot Acres, Inc., an Ohio corporation, d/b/a Dandy Blend

PRODUCT FOCUS: 14.1-ounce “Dandy Blend Instant Herbal Beverage”

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Judy Oh brings this putative class action against Goosefoot Acres, Inc., alleging that the company deceptively packages its dandelion tea product in oversized opaque containers, creating the false impression that the containers are adequately filled when in fact they are substantially empty. This practice, known as non-functional slack-fill, misleads consumers into paying a premium for what appears to be a greater quantity of product. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant intentionally uses excessive empty space for no legitimate reason—there is no fill line or other disclosure to inform consumers of the actual fill level. The complaint asserts violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The Plaintiff also references a series of similar cases that have survived dismissal and been certified for class treatment, underscoring the legal viability of such claims in California courts.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF :

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed class, appoint Plaintiff as class representative, and designate her counsel as counsel for the Class; issue an order enjoining Defendant from continuing its deceptive packaging practices as alleged herein; award damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; order restitution and/or disgorgement of profits wrongfully obtained; award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

27. Simon Oh v. Now Health Group, Inc

PLAINTIFF: Simon Oh

DEFENDANT: Now Health Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, doing business as Now Real Food

PRODUCT FOCUS:  32-ounce “Non-GMO Dextrose”

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Simon Oh alleges that Now Health Group, Inc. deceptively packages its Non-GMO Dextrose sugar substitute in oversized, mostly opaque containers, misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The container includes a transparent window, which Defendant allegedly fills to create the illusion of a full package—while the remaining opaque portion is left empty. This practice, known as non-functional slack-fill, allegedly serves no lawful purpose and is intended to deceive consumers and gain a competitive edge over rivals who disclose true fill levels. The complaint asserts that this packaging violates California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). Plaintiff claims injury in fact and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. The complaint also references numerous similar cases in which courts have sustained claims based on deceptive slack-fill, further supporting the viability of the action.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed class, appoint Plaintiff as class representative, and designate Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel; issue an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to package and label the Non-GMO Dextrose product in a misleading manner; award damages in an amount to be determined at trial, together with pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; order restitution and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains in an amount to be determined at trial; award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

28. Ninalia Purcell v. The Price Chopper Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Ninalia Purcell

DEFENDANT: The Price Chopper Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: kettle-cooked “Salt & Vinegar Flavored” potato chips.

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Ninalia Purcell alleges that The Price Chopper Inc. deceptively markets and sells its Pics brand Salt & Vinegar Flavored Kettle-Cooked Potato Chips in violation of New York consumer protection and labeling laws. The packaging is said to mislead reasonable consumers by featuring imagery and terminology suggesting that the chips derive their flavor from natural vinegar, when in fact the product contains no real vinegar and is flavored with artificial additives including malic acid—a synthetic compound commonly used to simulate tartness. The ingredient list does not include vinegar, and the taste is instead achieved with substances such as sodium diacetate, dextrose, malic acid, and citric acid. The labeling is therefore “misbranded” under New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 201(9) for failing to disclose the use of artificial flavoring. Under 1 N.Y.C.R.R. § 259.1(a), products that simulate flavors using artificial ingredients are required to use terms like “Artificially Flavored” or “Artificial [Salt and Vinegar] Flavored,” which Defendant failed to do. Plaintiff further contends that the misleading labeling allowed Defendant to sell the product at a premium price of approximately $2.69—higher than it would have sold for if accurately labeled. This price premium can be quantified using conjoint analysis and other economic valuation tools to determine the monetary impact of the misleading statements on consumer purchasing behavior.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF :

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully seeks to have this matter certified as a class action, with Plaintiff appointed as class representative and her counsel appointed as class counsel. Plaintiff further seeks actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, excluding statutory penalties, minimum recoveries, full-value damages, or punitive damages unless specifically permitted, and requests such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff also demands a jury trial on all issues.

29. Bonnie Reyes v. PepsiCo, Inc.

PLAINTIFF: Bonnie Reyes

DEFENDANT: PepsiCo, Inc., a North Carolina corporation doing business as Popcorners

PRODUCT FOCUS: 7-ounce bags of Sea Salt Popcorners popped corn snack.

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Bonnie Reyes brings this class action against PepsiCo, Inc. d/b/a Popcorners for its deceptive packaging practices involving its Sea Salt Popcorners product. The complaint alleges that the product packaging contains unlawful levels of slack-fill—nonfunctional empty space—which deceives consumers into believing they are purchasing more product than is actually provided. The packaging does not include indicators such as a fill line to inform consumers of the actual product quantity. Plaintiff alleges that this deceptive marketing scheme harms both consumers and competitors, who incur costs to provide more transparent labeling. The lawsuit asserts that PepsiCo’s practices violate California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the False Advertising Law (FAL). Plaintiff cites precedent showing that similar slack-fill cases have been found legally viable and appropriate for class treatment across multiple jurisdictions.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court certify this action as a class action, appoint Plaintiff as class representative, and designate Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel. Plaintiff further seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to package and label the Sea Salt Popcorners in the misleading manner described herein; damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; restitution and/or disgorgement of profits wrongfully obtained; reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

30. Cathy Rosa v. Wakefern Food Corp.

PLAINTIFF: Cathy Rosa

DEFENDANT: Wakefern Food Corp.

PRODUCT FOCUS: Salt and Vinegar Potato Chips sold under the Bowl & Basket brand.

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Cathy Rosa brings this class action lawsuit against Wakefern Food Corp., alleging that its Bowl & Basket Salt and Vinegar Potato Chips are misbranded and misleadingly labeled as containing “No Artificial Flavors.” The complaint alleges that the chips do not actually contain vinegar, and that their vinegar-like taste is instead achieved through the use of DL-Malic Acid, a synthetic additive produced from petroleum-based sources. Plaintiff claims that this violates New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law and consumer expectations, especially in light of widespread public concern over synthetic additives. According to the complaint, Wakefern’s use of the term “No Artificial Flavors” constitutes a deceptive marketing practice intended to command a price premium from health-conscious consumers. Plaintiff further alleges that lab testing and regulatory methods (such as enzymatic assays) can detect and confirm the presence of the synthetic D-isomer of Malic Acid in the product. The suit claims that consumers were misled and overcharged due to the misrepresentation and seeks damages based on economic harm calculated through market valuation methods.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that the Court declare this matter a proper class action, certify Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint the undersigned as class counsel. Plaintiff further seeks actual damages in a monetary amount to be determined at trial, excluding any statutory penalties, minimum recoveries, full value damages, or punitive damages that may be prohibited; and requests such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

31. Daniel James Ruchman v. Alpha Prime Supps, LLC,

PLAINTIFF: Daniel James Ruchman

DEFENDANT: Alpha Prime Supps, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

PRODUCT FOCUS: All flavors of Alpha Prime protein brownie bites

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Daniel James Ruchman brings this class action on behalf of California consumers, alleging that Alpha Prime Supps falsely advertises the protein content of its protein brownie bites. According to the complaint, all flavors of the product claim to contain 19 grams of protein per brownie on their labels and online. However, independent testing revealed that actual protein content falls significantly below this claim, with an average shortfall of 15.5%. Under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(g)(3), “Class I” foods such as these may not understate nutrient content, making the labeling allegedly unlawful. Consumers, including Plaintiff, relied on these representations for dietary planning, particularly protein intake. The inflated protein claims allegedly allowed Alpha Prime to charge premium prices, resulting in economic harm to consumers who would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less had they known the true protein content. Plaintiff seeks relief under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed Class, declare that Defendant violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and/or was unjustly enriched and/or breached an express warranty, and issue injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing the alleged unlawful practices and requiring corrective advertising. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

32. Jasmine Taylor and Dawn Noguera v. O Positiv, Inc.

PLAINTIFFS: Jasmine Taylor and Dawn Noguera

DEFENDANT: O Positiv, Inc.

PRODUCT FOCUS: URO Vaginal Probiotic Capsules

SUMMARY:

Plaintiffs Jasmine Taylor and Dawn Noguera bring this class action against O Positiv, Inc., alleging that the company falsely markets its URO Vaginal Probiotic Capsules as effective in addressing vaginal odor, taste, and other symptoms, and promoting vaginal health. The complaint asserts that there is no reliable clinical evidence supporting such claims and that the marketing plays on societal stigma regarding natural vaginal odor. The plaintiffs allege that the product is being promoted as a treatment for medical conditions without scientific substantiation, violating New York and California consumer protection laws and common law unjust enrichment doctrines. Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers who were misled into paying a premium price for the URO Capsules based on false advertising.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Classes, respectfully request that the Court certify the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and designate their counsel as Class Counsel; award compensatory, actual, statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount exceeding $5,000,000; grant civil penalties and appropriate declaratory and equitable relief including restitution and disgorgement; enjoin Defendant from continuing its alleged deceptive practices; award costs of prosecuting the action, including expert witness fees, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

33. Carol Valenta v. Naked Whey, Inc. dba Naked Nutrition

PLAINTIFF: Carol Valenta

DEFENDANT: Naked Whey, Inc. dba Naked Nutrition, a Florida corporation

PRODUCT FOCUS: Naked Nutrition Vegan Protein Powder Products

SUMMARY:

Plaintiff Carol Valenta alleges that Naked Nutrition misleads consumers by prominently advertising the protein content of its plant-based powders without accurately disclosing the “corrected amount” of protein per serving based on PDCAAS, as required by FDA regulations. The complaint asserts that while consumers reasonably rely on protein claims to meet their dietary and fitness goals, the products actually contain low-bioavailability protein and therefore do not deliver the nutritional benefit promised. Plaintiff, who tracks protein intake for weight and fitness goals, purchased the product based on these misleading statements. The lawsuit seeks relief for violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed class, declare that Defendant violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), was unjustly enriched, and/or breached an express warranty, and award actual, compensatory, or statutory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing its deceptive labeling practices and requiring a corrective advertising campaign; an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; pre- and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards; and any additional relief the Court deems just and proper.

34. Karen Vanhoogstraat v. Target Corporation

PLAINTIFF: Karen Vanhoogstraat

DEFENDANT: Target Corporation and DOES 1 through 10

PRODUCT FOCUS: Good & Gather Garden Combo Pasta Sauce

SUMMARY:

Karen Vanhoogstraat brings a proposed Missouri class action against Target Corporation for falsely advertising its “Good & Gather” Garden Combo Pasta Sauce as free from artificial preservatives. Despite prominently displaying the phrase “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives” on the label, the product contains citric acid, a known artificial preservative. Plaintiff alleges that this labeling is misleading to reasonable consumers, especially those seeking preservative-free products, and that it enables Target to charge a premium. The complaint asserts violations of the MMPA and various common law claims under Missouri law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify this case as a Missouri class action and appoint her as class representative and her counsel as class counsel; declare that Defendant is liable for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and other asserted claims; award Plaintiff and class members compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees; and grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Risk Reduction Tips for Food & Beverage Companies

• Avoid Absolute Claims: Broad phrases like “100%,” “natural,” “no preservatives,” or “recyclable” often invite litigation when even a single ingredient or fact contradicts them. Qualify statements where needed.
• Check Ingredient Functions: Ingredients such as citric acid, tocopherols, or cellulose can act as preservatives or flavorings. Don’t advertise “no artificial preservatives/flavors” unless you can clearly substantiate it.
• Be Careful with “Natural”: Only use “natural” or “from natural sources” if all ingredients and processes support the claim. Synthetic or industrially produced additives undermine it.
• Mind Protein & Supplement Claims: Ensure protein content is measured and disclosed per FDA rules, and that supplement dosage claims match serving sizes.
• Flavor, Color & Imagery: If a flavor or color is achieved artificially, disclose it. Product images and descriptions should match actual contents.
• Green & Packaging Claims: Qualify recyclability and sustainability claims with local realities, and avoid slack-fill packaging that exaggerates product volume.
• Documentation & Review: Maintain substantiation files for every claim and conduct legal/regulatory audits before launch or label refresh.

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].