Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, October 2025

The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during October 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].

What Is a Class Action? 

A class action is a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of people (a “class”) who have suffered similar harm from the same defendant. Instead of many individuals filing separate cases, one or more plaintiffs act as class representatives. This allows courts to address widespread harm more efficiently and ensures consistent results. In consumer protection cases—like the food and beverage filings we’ve reviewed—class actions often target misleading labels, false advertising, or deceptive marketing practices. 

1. Dorobiala v. Zammex Nutrition LLC 

Plaintiff: Thomas Dorobiala 

Defendant: Zammex Nutrition LLC 

Product Focus: Hydrolyzed Collagen Peptides  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Zammex Nutrition deceptively packages its Hydrolyzed Collagen Peptides supplements in oversized cylindrical containers that are only about 60% filled, creating the false impression that consumers are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The complaint asserts that this packaging practice constitutes unlawful slack-fill, misleading consumers into overpaying based on container size rather than product weight. 

According to the complaint, the empty space is nonfunctional and not justified by packaging requirements. Plaintiff contends he would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the product if he had known the container was substantially empty. Causes of action include violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and negligent misrepresentation 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief against deceptive slack-fill practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper 

2. Ferguson v. Walgreen Co.  

Plaintiff: Jason Ferguson  

Defendant: Walgreen Co.  

Product Focus: Walgreens Men’s Testosterone Complex supplement  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges Walgreens markets and sells Men’s Testosterone Complex with drug-like efficacy claims—e.g., boosting free testosterone, improving sexual function, and increasing strength/endurance—and touts that it has been “clinically studied,” both on the package and on Walgreens.com. Plaintiff contends the product fails to deliver the advertised benefits and that these claims show it is intended to affect the body or treat disease, rendering it a drug and an aphrodisiac drug under federal law.  

The complaint asserts Walgreens did not obtain FDA approval, making the product an unapproved new drug, and that selling unapproved drugs is unlawful and harmful to consumers. Causes of action include California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a class of purchasers who allegedly paid for a product that is not legal, safe, or effective as represented.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Class certification; restitution/disgorgement and damages; injunctive relief barring the challenged claims and sale of the unapproved drug; attorneys’ fees and costs; and further appropriate relief.  

3. Fischer v. Wilde Brands Inc. 

Plaintiff: Anna Fischer 

Defendant: Wilde Brands Inc. 

Product Focus: Wilde Protein Chips (Sea Salt & Vinegar, Himalayan Pink Salt)  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Anna Fischer filed a class action against Wilde Brands Inc., claiming the company deceptively packages its line of protein chips in oversized bags that are less than half full. According to the complaint, the chips occupy only about 33% of the total packaging volume, leading consumers to believe they are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The packaging’s size and opacity allegedly mislead consumers, as they cannot see or reasonably gauge how much product is inside prior to purchase. 

The complaint argues that the substantial empty space is nonfunctional slack-fill under federal and California law because it serves no protective, mechanical, or product-settling purpose. Plaintiff asserts that the practice violates the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by misleading consumers and creating unfair market advantages. The suit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Wilde’s chips within the past four years. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive packaging practices, attorneys’ fees, and costs, as well as any additional relief the Court deems proper 

4. Palacios v. Trader Joe’s Company 

Plaintiff: Mario Palacios 

Defendant: Trader Joe’s Company 

Product Focus: Trader Joe’s Organic Freezer Pops. 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe’s falsely and misleadingly markets its Organic Freezer Pops as “100% Juice,” when the products in fact contain water, natural flavors, malic acid, guar gum, and vegetable juice for color. The complaint states that water is the most prevalent ingredient and that the pops are made from reconstituted juice concentrate, not expressed fruit juice. Under federal law (21 C.F.R. § 101.30(b)(3)), beverages labeled “100% Juice” that include non-juice ingredients must disclose this clearly on the principal display panel, accompanied by qualifying language such as “with added ingredients.” Trader Joe’s allegedly hides this disclosure in small, hard-to-read font far from the “100% Juice” claim, misleading consumers into believing the product contains only pure juice 

The complaint asserts that Trader Joe’s intentionally used label design, font size, and color to convey a false impression of purity, capitalizing on its brand reputation for selling minimally processed, “clean label” foods. Plaintiff claims he purchased the product believing it contained only natural juice and paid a premium price compared to competing products like “Otter Pops,” which do not claim to be 100% juice. Causes of action include violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrected labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems proper. 

5. Palmeri v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Yovani Palmeri 

Defendants: PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc. 

Product Focus: Lay’s Poppables snack line labeled  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay falsely advertise their Poppables puffed potato snacks—including the Sea Salt, White Cheddar, Honey BBQ, Creamy Jalapeño, and Southwest Ranch flavors—as containing “No Artificial Flavors.” The complaint asserts that each product contains manufactured citric acid (MCA)—a synthetic compound created through industrial fermentation using the fungus Aspergillus niger. This ingredient is not derived from citrus fruits and serves as an artificial flavoring agent, added specifically to alter the product’s taste. 

According to the complaint, Frito-Lay’s use of MCA contradicts its “No Artificial Flavors” label and deceives consumers who purchase the product to avoid synthetic ingredients. The suit further cites scientific literature associating Aspergillus niger exposure with allergic reactions and inflammatory responses. Plaintiff claims that consumers paid a price premium based on misleading labeling and suffered economic harm. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising, as well as unjust enrichment under common law 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, statutory penalties under GBL §§ 349–350, attorneys’ fees, and costs, as well as injunctive relief to stop deceptive “No Artificial Flavors” labeling. 

6. Press v. Danone North America, LLC 

Plaintiff: Katerina Press 

Defendant: Danone North America, LLC 

Product Focus: Oikos Triple Zero Yogurt  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Danone North America falsely markets its Oikos Triple Zero yogurt products as containing “0 Artificial Sweeteners,” despite their inclusion of stevia leaf extract—a refined, chemically processed sweetener. The complaint details how stevia extract, specifically its purified steviol glycosides, undergoes multiple industrial steps such as extraction, ion-exchange, chemical purification, and spray drying, rendering it a synthetic additive under federal definitions. Plaintiff argues that this contradicts Danone’s “0 Artificial Sweeteners” claim and misleads consumers who pay a premium for “clean label” products believed to be free of artificial ingredients 

The complaint also references consumer research showing that over 80% of Americans seek “free-from” products, associating them with naturalness and health. It contends that Danone exploited these consumer expectations through false labeling while profiting from a misleading “zero artificial” marketing message. Plaintiff brings claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and for breach of express warranty, asserting that reasonable consumers would not have purchased or would have paid less for the products had they known about the presence of artificial sweeteners 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive “0 Artificial Sweeteners” labeling, damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief. 

7. Seaman v. Patafoods Inc. 

Plaintiff: Barbara Seaman 

Defendant: Patafoods Inc. 

Product Focus: Amara Organic Fruit Bites – Sweet Strawberry  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Patafoods misleads consumers by marketing its Amara Organic Fruit Bites – Sweet Strawberry as a strawberry-based snack when strawberries are present only in trace amounts. The packaging features a cartoon strawberry character and multiple images of strawberries, implying the product’s flavor and ingredients are primarily derived from strawberries. However, the ingredient list—shown in small print on the back—reveals the main components are organic apple and organic coconut milk, with strawberry listed third in minimal quantity 

The complaint contends that this misrepresentation constitutes misbranding under New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law and corresponding regulations, as the product’s common or usual name (“Sweet Strawberry”) fails to identify its true nature and principal ingredients. Plaintiff argues that reasonable consumers expect the product to consist predominantly of strawberries, a higher-cost fruit, and paid a premium price of $5.49 based on that belief. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 prohibiting false advertising and deceptive trade practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief to prevent misleading strawberry representations, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

8. Teitler v. BEF Foods Inc. 

Plaintiff: Paul Teitler 

Defendant: BEF Foods Inc. 

Product Focus: Bob Evans Macaroni & Cheese  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that BEF Foods misleads consumers by marketing its Bob Evans Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” despite including sodium phosphate, a synthetic chemical derived from phosphoric acid and sodium hydroxide. The complaint asserts that sodium phosphate functions as a preservative, emulsifier, and stabilizer, extending shelf life and preventing spoilage, rancidity, and flavor degradation—contradicting the product’s front-label claim. 

According to the complaint, BEF Foods’ representations deceive consumers who seek to avoid synthetic ingredients due to perceived health risks and a preference for natural foods. The product, sold at a premium of approximately $3.49, allegedly misleads purchasers into believing it is preservative-free. Plaintiff claims violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive and misleading labeling and seeks damages for the price premium paid. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages and restitution reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

9. Washington v. Walgreen Co. 

Plaintiff: Anita Washington 

Defendant: Walgreen Co. 

Product Focus: Walgreens Vitamin C Gummies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Anita Washington brings this class action against Walgreen Co., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Vitamin C Gummies as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when the product’s ingredient list includes citric acid, a synthetic chemical that functions as a preservative. The complaint details that citric acid, although naturally occurring in citrus fruits, is now industrially produced using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and various chemical processes involving lime, sulfuric acid, and ion exchange—rendering it a synthetic additive rather than a natural ingredient 

The plaintiff asserts that citric acid serves multiple preservative functions within the gummies, including pH control, oxidation prevention, and shelf-life extension, which directly contradict the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim on the front label. The complaint argues that such misrepresentations deceive consumers who seek to avoid synthetic substances and are willing to pay a premium price (approximately $12.19) for products perceived as natural. Washington alleges violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, asserting that Walgreens’ labeling constitutes false advertising and deceptive business practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages and restitution representing the price premium paid, and injunctive relief prohibiting Walgreens from using false or misleading “No Artificial Preservatives” labeling, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, and other just relief.  

10. Bibey et al. v. Trader Joe’s Company 

Plaintiffs: Bryan Bibey and Anne Lynn Elkind 

Defendant: Trader Joe’s Company 

Product Focus: Trader Joe’s Advanced Strength Probiotic Dietary Supplement  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Trader Joe’s falsely and misleadingly labels its Advanced Strength Probiotic supplement as containing 30 billion Colony Forming Units (CFUs) per capsule, when independent testing revealed the product delivers no more than 8.75 billion CFUs on average—less than 30% of the amount promised. The label further claims the probiotic is “3x stronger” than another Trader Joe’s product and highlights the “30 Billion CFU” representation in large, bold print. Plaintiffs contend that these representations deceive consumers into believing the product provides a potent probiotic dose when it does not. 

The complaint cites analytical testing of multiple product lots, all of which tested well below the advertised potency. Plaintiffs argue that Trader Joe’s conduct violates California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200 (UCL), § 17500 (FAL), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. The lawsuit asserts that Trader Joe’s mislabeling renders the supplement “misbranded” under both federal and state law and that the company profited from selling a deficient product to health-conscious consumers seeking verified probiotic benefits. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, punitive damages where applicable, injunctive relief to prevent false labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

11. Adams v. Aldi Inc. (New York) 

Plaintiff: Charisse Adams 

Defendant: Aldi Inc. (New York) 

Product Focus: Little Journey Strawberry Yogurt Bites  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Aldi misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its Little Journey Strawberry Yogurt Bites as containing “No Preservatives,” when the ingredient list includes ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)—a substance that functions as a preservative. The complaint details that while ascorbic acid is naturally found in citrus fruits, the version used in processed foods is synthetic, commonly derived from genetically modified corn and produced through chemical reactions and industrial fermentation processes. 

According to the complaint, ascorbic acid stabilizes pH, slows oxidation, and extends shelf life, meaning it acts as both a preservative and antioxidant, contradicting Aldi’s front-label claim. Plaintiff contends that the misleading labeling caused her and other consumers to pay a premium price of approximately $2.15 for the product, believing it to be free from artificial or chemical preservatives. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive and misleading business practices and false advertising. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive “No Preservatives” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

12. Hernandez v. Sazerac Company, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Rafael Hernandez 

Defendant: Sazerac Company, Inc. 

Product Focus: Fireball Cinnamon Malt Beverage  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Rafael Hernandez brings this class action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), alleging that Sazerac deceived consumers by selling a malt-based beverage labeled and branded nearly identically to its well-known Fireball Cinnamon Whisky. The complaint asserts that the malt beverage contains no whisky and only 16.5% alcohol by volume (ABV)—roughly half the alcohol content of the genuine whisky product (33% ABV). Despite this, Sazerac allegedly used the same bottle design, color scheme, red dragon logo, and “Fireball” trade dress to mislead consumers into believing they were purchasing real whisky. 

According to the complaint, Sazerac deliberately introduced this lower-alcohol malt version to expand sales into gas stations, convenience stores, and other retail outlets that are prohibited from selling spirits in many jurisdictions, including Florida. The packaging allegedly conceals the difference between the two products by using the same visual elements and failing to clearly disclose that the new version is a malt beverage rather than whisky. Plaintiff contends that this deception caused consumers to overpay for an inferior product and undermined the integrity of the Fireball brand. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive marketing and labeling of Fireball Malt, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

13. Kimbrell v. The Kraft Heinz Foods Company 

Plaintiff: Shawn Kimbrell 

Defendant: The Kraft Heinz Foods Company 

Product Focus: Capri Sun “Splash Cooler” Juice Drink  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Kraft Heinz misleads consumers by marketing and labeling its Capri Sun Splash Cooler drinks as containing “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives,” when the product includes citric acid, which functions as an artificial preservative. The complaint explains that while citric acid naturally occurs in citrus fruit, the ingredient used in Capri Sun is synthetically manufactured through fermentation of genetically modified sugar with the black mold Aspergillus niger. 

According to the complaint, citric acid acts as a preservative by controlling pH, preventing microbial growth, and extending shelf life—making the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim false and deceptive. The plaintiff further asserts that the FDA, USDA, and scientific authorities recognize citric acid as a synthetic preservative under food labeling laws. The lawsuit argues that Kraft Heinz’s labeling misleads consumers, who pay a price premium (approximately $3.99 per box) believing they are buying an all-natural product. Causes of action include violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), as well as claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract under Missouri law. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief prohibiting false “No Artificial Preservatives” labeling, along with attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

14. McCool v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Jason McCool 

Defendant: Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Product Focus: Somatomax dietary supplement  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Jason McCool filed this class action against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the company falsely markets and sells Somatomax as a safe, legal dietary supplement when it actually contains Phenibut—a powerful, synthetic prescription drug banned for use in dietary supplements under U.S. law. The complaint explains that Phenibut is a psychoactive sedative developed in the Soviet Union, comparable to benzodiazepines such as Xanax, and known to cause addiction, dependence, and severe withdrawal symptoms. Despite these dangers, Hi-Tech allegedly promotes Somatomax as a natural sleep aid that provides “enhanced sleep and a feeling of well-being.” 

According to the complaint, Somatomax contains between 2,000 and 3,000 mg of Phenibut per serving, a dose up to four times higher than the maximum therapeutic level used where Phenibut remains a prescription drug. The plaintiff asserts that Hi-Tech fails to disclose these risks and even recommends this high dose on its packaging and website. The lawsuit claims that Hi-Tech’s labeling deceives consumers by presenting the product as a benign supplement, while in reality it is an adulterated and misbranded drug that cannot lawfully be sold. Causes of action include violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the sale and marketing of Somatomax as a dietary supplement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

15. Nwaigbo v. HUM Nutrition, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Judith Nwaigbo 

Defendant: HUM Nutrition, Inc. 

Product Focus: HUM “Flatter Me Fiber GLP-1 Booster”  

Summary: 
Plaintiff brings this class action against HUM Nutrition, alleging that the company falsely markets its Flatter Me Fiber GLP-1 Booster supplement as capable of significantly increasing GLP-1 hormone levels and providing weight loss effects similar to prescription GLP-1 agonist drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. According to the complaint, HUM promotes the product as “clinically tested” and claims it “doubles GLP-1 levels after one use to curb appetite,” helping consumers “escape cravings.” Plaintiff asserts that these claims are scientifically baseless and misleading, as naturally produced GLP-1 in the body has a short half-life of minutes, whereas GLP-1 drugs last for days and produce materially different physiological effects. 

The complaint cites HUM’s marketing—both on its website and on Amazon—which repeatedly touts the “Fauxzempic Effect” and references a single 2015 study that does not substantiate HUM’s claims. Plaintiff alleges the supplement may cause only modest and temporary increases in GLP-1 that are not clinically meaningful, while HUM’s advertising suggests results comparable to prescription medications. The lawsuit brings causes of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), claiming HUM capitalized on the “GLP-1 craze” to mislead consumers and charge a premium for a supplement that cannot deliver the promised effects. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false and misleading advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

16. Pakier v. Turtle Island Foods, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Freddi Pakier 

Defendant: Turtle Island Foods, Inc. 

Product Focus: Tofurky plant-based deli slices, sausages, chick’n, burgers, crumbles, and pockets  

Summary: 
Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Turtle Island Foods, the manufacturer of Tofurky brand plant-based products, falsely and deceptively advertises the amount of protein in its products by displaying claims like “24g Protein per Serving” or “Excellent Source of Protein” without disclosing the corrected amount of digestible protein as required by federal law. The complaint asserts that the front-label protein statements mislead consumers by omitting the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) value and the corresponding % Daily Value (%DV) for protein on the Nutrition Facts Panel. 

According to the complaint, FDA regulations require manufacturers to adjust front-label protein claims based on both quantity and quality of protein, reflecting how much of it is actually digestible. Because Tofurky’s products are made primarily from soy and wheat gluten, which provide incomplete amino acid profiles, the true digestible protein content is lower than advertised. Plaintiff alleges that Turtle Island Foods’ omissions allowed it to overstate the nutritional value of its products and charge a premium price, misleading consumers into believing they were purchasing products with higher-quality protein. Causes of action include violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, damages, injunctive relief requiring corrected protein labeling in compliance with FDA standards, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

17. Solano v. Panera Bread Company 

Plaintiff: Gerardo Solana 

Defendant: Panera Bread Company 

Product Focus: Panera Macaroni & Cheese  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Panera Bread falsely and misleadingly markets its Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when the product includes sodium citrate, a synthetic ingredient that acts as a preservative, buffering agent, emulsifier, and antioxidant. The complaint explains that sodium citrate is a laboratory-produced chemical made by reacting citric acid—typically derived from genetically modified sugar fermented with Aspergillus niger—with sodium compounds. The resulting ingredient is used to extend shelf life, prevent spoilage, and maintain the creamy texture and pH stability of processed cheese sauces. 

According to the complaint, Panera’s claim of “No Artificial Preservatives” deceives consumers who pay a premium for foods perceived as natural or free from synthetic additives. The plaintiff cites multiple scientific and food industry sources showing that sodium citrate inhibits microbial growth and rancidity, thereby serving preservative functions under both FDA and New York definitions. Plaintiff asserts that this misrepresentation violates New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, prohibiting deceptive and false advertising practices, and that consumers paid more than they otherwise would have for the product based on Panera’s misleading “clean label” claims. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling of preservative content, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

18. Testori v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Eric Testori 

Defendant: Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. 

Product Focus: Carnation Breakfast Essentials French Vanilla Nutritional Drink.” 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Nestlé Health Science deceptively markets its Carnation Breakfast Essentials drink as a balanced, protein-rich nutritional supplement while concealing that its primary ingredients are water and sugar, not protein. The complaint states that each serving delivers 12 grams of added sugar—equal to 24% of the FDA’s recommended daily value for added sugars—and contains more sugar than protein by weight. Nestlé prominently displays “10g Protein per Serving” and emphasizes the product as a “nutritious start to the day,” misleading consumers into believing it is a healthful breakfast substitute when in reality it functions as a sugar-sweetened beverage. 

According to the complaint, FDA regulations require that nutrient content claims not be presented in a manner that misleads about a product’s overall nutritional value. Plaintiff argues that Nestlé’s emphasis on protein, combined with its failure to disclose the predominance of sugar, renders the label false and misleading under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Plaintiff claims that consumers pay a premium for a drink they believe is high in protein, when it is dominated by sugar and water. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, damages, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading protein and nutritional claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems proper. 

19. Timmons v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC 

Plaintiff: Dominique Timmons 

Defendants: Reckitt Benckiser LLC and RB Health (US) LLC 

Product Focus: Neuriva Original, Neuriva Plus, Neuriva Plus Strawberry Gummies, and Neuriva Ultra  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Reckitt Benckiser and its subsidiary RB Health falsely and deceptively market their Neuriva brain supplements as clinically proven to improve memory, focus, concentration, learning, and cognitive performance. The complaint contends that these claims are scientifically unsubstantiated, relying on two main ingredients—S-PS and CCE—that do not produce the advertised brain health or performance benefits. The filing cites the European Food Safety Authority and peer-reviewed studies that found no cause-and-effect relationship between phosphatidylserine supplementation and cognitive improvement. 

According to the complaint, the defendants’ purported clinical trial supporting Neuriva’s claims was flawed, lacked statistical significance, and showed that the product performed no better than a placebo. Plaintiff asserts that Reckitt’s own cited studies misreported or overstated positive findings, with only 5 of 102 tests showing any statistical difference, likely due to chance. The lawsuit claims that the representations on Neuriva’s labeling and website are false, misleading, and designed to exploit consumers’ trust in “neuroscience-backed” supplements. Causes of action include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, among other state consumer protection laws. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false “brain performance” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

20. Wright v. Jonny Pops LLC 

Plaintiff: Latonya Wright 

Defendant: Jonny Pops LLC 

Product Focus: Jonny Pops Rainbow Fruit Stacks Frozen Dessert Bars 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Jonny Pops misleads consumers by marketing its Rainbow Fruit Stacks frozen dessert bars as being made “with simple ingredients” and appearing “better-for-you” through packaging that features fresh fruit imagery, bright coloring, and the phrase “Organic Cherry and Orange Juice.” According to the complaint, these representations imply that the product contains significant amounts of real fruit when, in fact, the primary ingredients are water and sugar, with only negligible amounts of fruit juice. The ingredient list reveals that the bars contain “fruit and vegetable juice for color” rather than as flavoring, contradicting the front label’s message. 

The complaint further claims the product’s “Made with Simple Ingredients” statement is misleading because the formulation includes natural flavors and citric acid, which are chemically processed and not simple ingredients as consumers would understand the term. Plaintiff asserts that Jonny Pops’ packaging misleads consumers into believing the dessert is a healthier, fruit-based product, despite containing ten grams of added sugar per serving and minimal fruit content. The lawsuit alleges violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for false and deceptive labeling and advertising practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring Jonny Pops to correct misleading fruit and ingredient claims, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems proper. 

21. Collins v. Florida Natural Growers, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Amy Collins 

Defendant: Florida Natural Growers, Inc. 

Product Focus: Florida’s Natural Ruby Red Grapefruit Juice  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Amy Collins brings this class action against Florida Natural Growers, alleging that the company falsely markets its Florida’s Natural Ruby Red Grapefruit Juice as being made exclusively from Florida-grown fruit. The product label prominently features the phrase “Owned by Florida Farmers” alongside a United States flag, collectively suggesting that the juice is entirely sourced from Florida grapefruit. However, the complaint asserts that since May 2022, the product has been blended with grapefruit juice from Mexico, contradicting the front-label representations and violating the Federal Trade Commission’s “Made in USA” standards, which require that all or virtually all ingredients be U.S.-sourced. 

The complaint further explains that consumers widely associate Florida citrus with superior taste and quality and are willing to pay a premium—approximately 50% more—for juice labeled as Florida-grown. Plaintiff alleges that Florida Natural intentionally capitalized on this reputation by continuing to display the Florida imagery and wording after switching to mixed-origin juice. The action claims violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive acts and false advertising, as well as common-law fraud, arguing that the misbranding misled consumers into overpaying for a product that was not exclusively Floridian. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful origin labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

22. Seaman v. New Cibo Vita LLC 

Plaintiff: Barbara Seaman 

Defendant: New Cibo Vita LLC 

Product Focus: Nature’s Garden Probiotic Mixed Berry Yoggies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that New Cibo Vita misleads consumers by marketing its Nature’s Garden Yoggies as yogurt-covered fruit snacks when the pieces are actually coated in a candy-like shell made primarily of sugar and palm oil with only a minimal amount of yogurt. The complaint states that the product’s label, featuring the phrase “Coated by Creamy Yogurt” and images of thick, white yogurt, deceives consumers into believing the coating consists substantially of real yogurt. In reality, the ingredient list reveals that the coating’s primary components are non-dairy additives such as sugar, palm kernel oil, and whey protein concentrate, rather than milk or cultured dairy products. 

According to the complaint, the use of “yogurt powder” and “Greek yogurt powder” in the coating provides no meaningful health benefits because the heating process required to create these powders destroys live cultures. The plaintiff asserts that the labeling leads consumers to believe the product provides the nutritional benefits of real yogurt, when in fact it does not. As a result, consumers allegedly pay a premium price of $2.29 for a snack that is nutritionally equivalent to candy. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for false and deceptive business practices and misbranding. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages reflecting the price premium paid, and injunctive relief prohibiting misleading yogurt representations, along with attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper. 

23. Carter v. Calbee America Inc. 

Plaintiff: Cri’Shawna Carter 

Defendant: Calbee America Inc. 

Product Focus: Harvest Snaps Tomato Basil Baked Red Lentil Snacks  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Calbee America misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its Harvest Snaps Tomato Basil Baked Red Lentil Snacks as containing “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives,” when the ingredient list discloses citric acid, a synthetic additive that functions as a preservative. The complaint describes citric acid as a laboratory-produced chemical made through the fermentation of genetically modified sugar with Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined using multiple industrial processes. It argues that the inclusion of this ingredient directly contradicts the “No Preservatives” labeling claim and renders the product misbranded under New York food laws. 

The complaint explains that citric acid serves several preservative functions in the snack’s tomato basil seasoning, including controlling pH, reducing microbial growth, preventing oxidation, and extending shelf life. It also enhances color and stability through buffering, antioxidant, and chelating properties. Plaintiff asserts that consumers pay a premium price of approximately $2.49 per bag based on the false impression that the product is free from artificial preservatives. The lawsuit claims violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit false and deceptive business practices and misleading advertising. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages for the price premium paid, and injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling of preservative content, along with attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

24. Handsome v. Continental Mills Inc. 

Plaintiff: Crystal Handsome 

Defendant: Continental Mills Inc. 

Product Focus: Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Quick Bread Mix  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Continental Mills falsely and misleadingly markets its Krusteaz Cinnamon Swirl Quick Bread Mix as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when the product’s ingredient list reveals the inclusion of silicon dioxide, a synthetic compound that functions as a preservative. The complaint explains that while silicon dioxide is derived from natural elements like sand, the version used in processed foods is synthetically manufactured through chemical and thermal reactions, primarily in industrial factories in China. 

According to the complaint, silicon dioxide acts not only as an anti-caking agent but also as a preservative, extending shelf life by preventing oxidation, rancidity, and moisture absorption in the topping mixture. Plaintiff contends that these preservative properties directly contradict the “No Artificial Preservatives” label, misleading consumers who pay a premium price of approximately $3.99 for a product they believe to be free from synthetic ingredients. The lawsuit asserts violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging that the product is misbranded and that consumers paid more than they otherwise would have for the falsely labeled mix. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

25. Fetters v. EcoWise Wellness LLC and Prosper Nutrition LLC 

Plaintiff: Dean Fetters 

Defendants: EcoWise Wellness LLC and Prosper Nutrition LLC 

Product Focus: EcoWise Creatine Monohydrate Gummies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that EcoWise Wellness and Prosper Nutrition falsely advertise their Creatine Monohydrate Gummies as containing 5000 mg (5 grams) of creatine per serving, when independent laboratory testing found that the gummies contain virtually no creatine at all. The complaint cites two separate lab analyses—one conducted by the supplement testing group SuppCo and another commissioned by plaintiff’s counsel—both of which confirmed that the product delivers less than 0.05 mg of creatine per gummy, or 0.004% of the labeled amount. Despite this, the defendants’ marketing materials, including their Amazon listings and product packaging, claim the gummies provide muscle growth, strength, endurance, and cognitive benefits associated with daily creatine supplementation. 

According to the complaint, the companies further mislead consumers by describing the gummies as “scientifically formulated,” “lab verified,” and “tested for purity and potency,” when no credible evidence supports these claims. The lawsuit argues that the defendants’ products are severely underfilled, rendering their creatine content claims false and misleading. Plaintiff asserts violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment, alleging that consumers paid a significant price premium for a supplement that provides none of the advertised benefits. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false creatine content claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

26. Adam v. Walmart Inc. 

Plaintiff: Janice Adam 

Defendant: Walmart Inc. 

Product Focus: Equate Protein Shake (Chocolate Flavor)  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Walmart falsely and misleadingly markets its Equate Protein Shake as containing 30 grams of protein per serving, when independent laboratory testing found the product delivers only 26.98 grams, a 10% shortfall from the amount advertised. The front label prominently claims “30g Protein / 60% Daily Value,” yet the true corrected value, calculated under FDA’s Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) method, is closer to 54% Daily Value. Plaintiff argues that the discrepancy renders the label misbranded under federal law (21 C.F.R. §101.9) and deceptive under California’s consumer protection statutes, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). 

The complaint explains that protein shakes fortified with added isolates are classified as Class I nutrients, which must contain 100% of the declared amount of protein. Walmart’s product, falling short of this standard, therefore violates federal and state food labeling laws. Plaintiff further contends that Walmart’s failure to include the corrected protein disclosure in the Nutrition Facts Panel, as required by the FDA, deprived consumers of essential nutritional information and induced them to pay a premium price based on inflated protein claims. The lawsuit emphasizes that protein is a key purchasing factor for consumers and overstating both grams and %DV materially impacts value and consumer trust. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. 

27. Argueta v. General Mills, Inc. d/b/a Fruity Cheerios 

Plaintiff: Jessica Argueta 

Defendant: General Mills, Inc., doing business as Fruity Cheerios 

Product Focus: Fruity Cheerios Cereal  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that General Mills deceives consumers by selling Fruity Cheerios cereal in oversized packaging that contains significant amounts of nonfunctional slack-fill—empty space that serves no legitimate purpose. According to the complaint, the opaque bag and exterior box mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing more cereal than they actually receive. Plaintiff provides photographic evidence showing that the bag is less than half full, despite the outer packaging suggesting a larger quantity. 

The lawsuit asserts that the packaging design intentionally conveys an inflated sense of volume and value, prompting consumers to pay a premium price for “empty air.” The complaint states that none of the recognized exceptions for functional slack-fill (such as protection, machine requirements, or settling) apply to Fruity Cheerios. Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as common-law fraud, arguing that General Mills profits from deceptive packaging that harms consumers and fair competition. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, an injunction requiring General Mills to add a visible fill line or adjust packaging, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

28. McWhite-York v. Foster Farms, LLC 

Plaintiff: Kamonica McWhite-York 

Defendant: Foster Farms, LLC 

Product Focus: Foster Farms Chicken and Turkey Corn Dogs on a Stick 

Summary: 
Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action after Foster Farms recalled 3.8 million pounds of its chicken and turkey corn dogs on October 4, 2025, following discovery of wood fragments embedded in the batter. The recall, confirmed by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, involved products produced between July 30 and August 4, 2025 and bearing establishment number P-6137B. Foster Farms received multiple consumer complaints and at least five injury reports linked to the contamination. 

According to the complaint, Foster Farms failed to adequately design, test, inspect, and monitor its manufacturing process, allowing contaminated food to enter commerce and placing consumers at risk. Plaintiff alleges economic loss for purchasing a product rendered “adulterated, unsafe, and worthless.” The company publicly announced the recall but offered no direct refund or remedy to consumers. Claims include breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (for selling food unfit for consumption) and unjust enrichment, asserting that Foster Farms retained profits from selling defective products instead of issuing full refunds. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to ensure adequate recall remedies and future safety measures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

29. Zaitz v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Laurin Zaitz 

Defendant: Pepperidge Farm, Inc. 

Product Focus: Goldfish Flavor Blasted Snack Crackers labeled “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Pepperidge Farm falsely and deceptively markets its Goldfish Flavor Blasted Snack Crackers as containing “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives,” despite the inclusion of citric acid, a synthetic preservative produced through industrial fermentation of genetically modified sugar with Aspergillus niger. The complaint argues that this additive functions as an antioxidant, antimicrobial, and pH regulator, preventing spoilage, oxidation, and microbial growth—preservative functions recognized by both the FDA and the USDA. The plaintiff contends that the presence of citric acid directly contradicts the “No Preservatives” claim, rendering the product misbranded and misleading. 

According to the complaint, consumers reasonably rely on “No Artificial Preservatives” claims when making quick purchasing decisions, believing such products to be more natural and healthful. The lawsuit cites studies showing that over 70% of consumers seek preservative-free foods and pay a premium price based on that expectation. Plaintiff asserts that Pepperidge Farm intentionally used the claim to attract health-conscious shoppers while concealing the preservative function of citric acid within the ingredient list. Causes of action include violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting false “No Preservatives” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

30. Kolkin v. Florida Natural Growers, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Martin Kolkin 

Defendant: Florida Natural Growers, Inc. 

Product Focus: Florida’s Natural Orange Juice  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Martin Kolkin brings this class action alleging that Florida Natural Growers falsely and deceptively markets its Florida’s Natural Orange Juice products as being made exclusively from Florida-grown oranges. The front label prominently features the phrases “Owned by Florida Farmers” and “Fresh from the Grove Taste,” accompanied by an image of the American flag, which together imply that the juice is a purely Floridian and U.S.-sourced product. The complaint asserts that this branding is misleading because, since May 2022, the company has been blending juice from Mexico and Brazil with Florida juice while continuing to market the product as if it were made entirely from Florida oranges. 

The complaint further details that consumers are willing to pay a premium price—approximately 50% higher—for orange juice sourced solely from Florida, based on its reputation for superior flavor and quality. Plaintiff argues that the “Owned by Florida Farmers” claim and flag imagery constitute an implied “Made in the USA” representation under Federal Trade Commission regulations, which is deceptive because not “all or virtually all” ingredients are U.S.-sourced. The suit alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment, seeking relief for consumers misled by the labeling and marketing practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring truthful origin labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

31. Choudhry & Harry v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC 

Plaintiffs: Moona Choudhry and Kamal Harry 

Defendant: Mead Johnson & Company, LLC (subsidiary of Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC) 

Product Focus: Enfamil powdered infant formulas  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs bring a class action against Mead Johnson, alleging that the company deceptively marketed its Enfamil infant formulas as high-quality, nutritious, and safe, while failing to disclose that the products contained or risked containing toxic heavy metals — specifically arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Independent and internal testing cited in the complaint revealed measurable levels of these contaminants in several Enfamil products, with Enfamil Nutramigen showing the highest results: up to 7.9 ppb arsenic, 4.6 ppb cadmium, and 6.5–12.8 ppb lead. The complaint asserts that Mead Johnson knowingly misled parents through packaging claims such as “#1 Recommended Brand by Pediatricians,” “Brain Building,” and “Made with Nutritious Ingredients,” while omitting any warning about potential heavy metal content. Plaintiffs argue that these statements, paired with assurances of rigorous safety standards and “stringent quality checks,” gave consumers the false impression that Enfamil products were free from harmful toxins and safe for infants. 

Citing studies and FDA guidance confirming that no level of heavy metal exposure is safe for infants, plaintiffs allege that Mead Johnson breached its duties under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and violated the implied warranty of merchantability. The complaint further claims that Mead Johnson and its trade association lobbied against legislation requiring baby food companies to disclose heavy metal testing results, showing “deliberate concealment” of material safety information. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring full disclosure of heavy metal presence on packaging, corrective advertising, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

32. Bruno v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. 

Plaintiff: Perry Bruno 

Defendant: Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. 

Product Focus: Snapple All Natural Juice Drinks  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Perry Bruno brings this class action alleging that Keurig Dr. Pepper deceptively markets and labels its Snapple All Natural beverages as “All Natural” despite containing synthetic citric acid. The complaint explains that the citric acid used in these beverages is commercially manufactured through industrial fermentation of genetically modified sugar using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined with petroleum-based solvents, not derived from natural fruit sources as consumers would expect. Plaintiff argues that this artificial additive disqualifies the drinks from being truthfully described as “All Natural.” 

According to the complaint, reasonable consumers understand “All Natural” to mean that a product contains only ingredients found in or derived from nature without chemical processing. By including a synthetic ingredient while marketing the drinks as natural, Keurig Dr. Pepper allegedly misled consumers into paying a premium price for beverages they believed were free from artificial components. The suit cites the California False Advertising Law (FAL) and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), asserting that the misbranding caused economic injury and violated consumers’ rights to accurate product information. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring Keurig Dr. Pepper to cease false “All Natural” advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

33. Sarayli & Mastrondari v. Huel Ltd. 

Plaintiffs: Aykut Sarayli and Robert Mastrondari 

Defendant: Huel Ltd., a British limited company 

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition Vegan Protein Powder  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that Huel Ltd. misleads consumers by marketing its Huel Black Edition meal replacement powder as a healthy, balanced, and safe food that complies with all U.S. dietary standards, while failing to disclose that the product contains excessive levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. According to the complaint, Consumer Reports identified Huel’s product as a “Product to Avoid” after laboratory testing showed that consuming a single daily serving exposes consumers to 1.288 times the maximum weekly level of lead deemed safe by the FDA and 8 micrograms of cadmium per serving—well above the acceptable background exposure limit. 

The complaint asserts that Huel promotes its products through statements like “Food Safety and Quality Controls,” claiming to “analyze raw ingredients, production batches, and finished products to maintain complete oversight of our supply chain,” while failing to warn consumers about the heavy metal contamination. Plaintiffs allege that regular consumption of the product poses risks to neurological development, kidney function, and cardiovascular health, especially for pregnant women and children. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and breach of implied warranty. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of heavy metal content and reformulation of products, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

34. Sicairos v. Cove Drinks, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Claudia Sicairos 

Defendant: Cove Drinks, Inc. 

Product Focus: Cove Probiotic Sodas  

Summary: 
Plaintiff brings this class action against Cove Drinks, alleging that the company falsely markets its Cove Probiotic Soda line as containing “Zero Sugar” and “No Artificial Sweeteners,” when the products actually contain erythritol—a synthetic and chemically processed sugar alcohol. The complaint asserts that erythritol, though naturally present in trace amounts in fruits, is industrially produced through fermentation of genetically modified corn using Moniliella pollinis and extensive chemical purification, making it an artificial ingredient under FDA standards. 

The lawsuit further cites a 2023 Cleveland Clinic study linking elevated erythritol levels to a significantly increased risk of heart attack and stroke, undermining Cove’s marketing claims that its sodas are “healthy,” “natural,” and “beneficial for gut health.” Plaintiff alleges that she and other consumers relied on these representations when purchasing the products at a premium price, believing they were free from synthetic sweeteners. The complaint asserts that Cove’s labeling and advertising are false and misleading, violating California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false “Zero Sugar” and “No Artificial Sweeteners” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

35. Valle v. Drip Drop Hydration Inc. 

Plaintiff: Endy Valle Jr. 

Defendant: Drip Drop Hydration Inc. 

Product Focus: DripDrop ORS Electrolyte Drink Mix  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Drip Drop Hydration Inc. falsely and misleadingly markets its DripDrop ORS Electrolyte Drink Mix as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when the product includes citric acid, a synthetic ingredient that serves preservative functions. The complaint explains that citric acid, though naturally present in citrus fruits, is industrially manufactured through fermentation of genetically modified sugar with Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined through chemical processes involving sulfuric acid, lime, and ion exchange. This synthetic compound functions as a buffering agent, acidulant, antioxidant, and chelating agent—all of which contribute to preservation of freshness, pH balance, and prevention of microbial growth. 

According to the complaint, these functions mean citric acid effectively acts as a preservative under federal and New York law, contradicting Drip Drop’s “No Artificial Preservatives” claim. The product label allegedly deceives consumers into believing the mix is free from chemical additives, causing them to pay a premium price of approximately $8.49 per box. Plaintiff asserts violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, claiming the product is misbranded and adulterated because its labeling misrepresents its true composition and preservative properties. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrected labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

36. Arres v. Langer Juice Company, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Hattie K. Arres 

Defendant: Langer Juice Company, Inc. 

Product Focus: Langers 100% Juice and Fresh Pressed Pomegranate 100% Juice  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Hattie K. Arres brings this class action against Langer Juice Company, alleging that the company falsely and misleadingly markets its juice products as “100% Juice” and “Pure Juice” when they actually contain artificial additives, preservatives, and flavor enhancers. According to the complaint (pages 4–9), Langer’s juices include synthetic ingredients such as ascorbic acid, citric acid, xanthan gum, malic acid, and natural flavors, none of which are naturally present in pure fruit juice. The plaintiff asserts that these additives perform preservative, stabilizing, and flavoring functions, rendering the “100% Juice” and “Pure Juice” labels false and deceptive. 

The complaint highlights that Langer’s markets its products, including Fresh Pressed Pomegranate Juice, Apple Berry Juice, and Cranberry Juice Cocktail, as “100% Juice” to appeal to health-conscious consumers willing to pay a premium price. Plaintiff alleges that these claims violate FDA definitions for juice labeling, which require full ingredient transparency when preservatives or flavor additives are used. The lawsuit contends that Langer’s labeling misleads consumers into believing the juices are composed entirely of natural juice with no added ingredients. Causes of action include violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment (pages 17–27). 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false “100% Juice” and “Pure Juice” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper (page 30). 

37. Lewis v. Supplying Demand, Inc. d/b/a Liquid Death 

Plaintiff: Leona Lewis 

Defendant: Supplying Demand, Inc. d/b/a Liquid Death 

Product Focus: Liquid Death canned water products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Leona Lewis brings this class action against Liquid Death, alleging that the company falsely markets its aluminum-canned beverages as plastic-free and aligned with an environmental “Death to Plastic” movement, while the products’ cans are in fact lined with plastic on the inside. The complaint states that Liquid Death’s marketing campaign, social media presence, and packaging design—all centered around anti-plastic messaging—mislead consumers into believing the beverages are a sustainable alternative to plastic bottles. Plaintiff alleges that the company’s brand identity and slogan conceal the fact that the aluminum cans contain a plastic resin lining, similar to those used in other canned beverages. 

The complaint cites Liquid Death’s widespread use of environmental slogans such as “Death to Plastic,” “Recycle or Die,” and “Infinitely Recyclable” across YouTube, TikTok, and packaging materials. Plaintiff contends that these representations exploit consumers’ environmental concerns and willingness to pay a premium for sustainable products. The suit further alleges that the defendant’s omissions violate California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as constitute breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The company’s failure to disclose the presence of plastic allegedly deprived consumers of informed purchasing choices and caused economic harm. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false “Death to Plastic” representations, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. 

38. Carter v. The Hillshire Brands Company & Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Meshweida Carter 

Defendants: The Hillshire Brands Company and Tyson Foods, Inc. 

Product Focus: Jimmy Dean Blueberry Pancakes & Sausage on a Stick  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Meshweida Carter brings this class action against Tyson Foods and its subsidiary Hillshire Brands, alleging that the companies manufactured, marketed, and sold adulterated food products that posed a safety hazard to consumers. The complaint arises from the September 27, 2025 recall of approximately 58 million pounds of Jimmy Dean pancake-and-sausage products, following the discovery of small pieces of wooden material embedded in the batter. The recall, announced by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, stated that the affected products presented a significant risk of injury if consumed. 

Plaintiff alleges that Tyson and Hillshire failed to warn consumers of the contamination risk and continued to promote the recalled products as safe, nutritious, and high-quality. The companies’ labeling and advertising allegedly omitted any indication of potential contamination, misleading consumers into believing the products were safe for family consumption. Plaintiff argues that the companies’ conduct violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment, asserting that consumers paid for food that was unsafe and not fit for sale. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring improved recall procedures and truthful safety disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

39. Riley v. Huel, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Derrick Riley 

Defendant: Huel, Inc. 

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition Powder  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Derrick Riley brings this class action against Huel, Inc., alleging that the company falsely markets its Huel Black Edition Powder as a healthy, safe, and nutritionally balanced meal while concealing the presence of elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. The complaint cites Consumer Reports testing showing that one daily serving of Huel Black Edition exposes consumers to 1.288 times the FDA’s maximum weekly limit for lead and 9.2 micrograms of cadmium, both exceeding established health thresholds. These metals are known neurotoxins linked to developmental delays, reproductive harm, kidney damage, and increased cancer risk. 

The complaint asserts that Huel’s marketing—claiming compliance with “HHS and USDA Dietary Guidelines,” “Food Safety and Quality Controls,” and rigorous supplier testing—is false and misleading. Huel allegedly failed to disclose that its products contain dangerous contaminants while promoting them as “safe, high-quality, and nutrient-rich.” The plaintiff argues that the omissions deprived consumers of informed purchasing decisions and caused them to pay a premium for unsafe products. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349–350, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring full disclosure of heavy metal content and reformulation of Huel products, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

40. Spero & Ryadi v. Blue Circle Foods LLC d/b/a Changing Seas and Blue Sea LLC 

Plaintiffs: David Spero and Anas Ryadi 

Defendants: Blue Circle Foods LLC d/b/a Changing Seas and Blue Sea LLC 

Product Focus: Changing Seas Norwegian Atlantic Smoked Salmon  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Blue Circle Foods and Blue Sea LLC falsely and deceptively market their Changing Seas Norwegian Atlantic Smoked Salmon as naturally colored and wild-caught, when in fact the product is farmed salmon dyed with synthetic color additives to mimic the pink-orange hue of wild salmon. According to the complaint, the defendants feed farmed salmon synthetic pigments such as astaxanthin and canthaxanthin, which artificially color the fish’s flesh to make it visually indistinguishable from wild salmon. Testing conducted on the product confirmed the presence of these additives, which were not disclosed on the packaging. 

The complaint asserts that the omission of these artificial colorants deceives consumers into believing they are purchasing premium, wild-caught salmon, when they are actually buying a farmed product enhanced with synthetic additives. Plaintiffs argue that this misrepresentation allows defendants to charge higher prices and gain unfair market advantage. Causes of action include violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), as well as unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs also highlight that federal and California law require salmon products containing added color to disclose this on their labeling, which defendants allegedly failed to do. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of artificial color additives on product packaging, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

41. Albright v. Huel, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Amber Albright 

Defendant: Huel, Inc. 

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition Protein Powder  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Amber Albright brings this class action against Huel, Inc., alleging that the company falsely markets its Huel Black Edition Protein Powder as a nutritious, high-protein, and complete meal replacement while concealing that it contains dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. According to the complaint, independent testing by Consumer Reports found that one serving of the product contains 6.3 micrograms of lead—more than 12 times California’s “safe harbor” limit—and more than double the amount of cadmium health experts deem safe for daily ingestion. 

The complaint asserts that Huel markets the product as a “high-protein complete meal” that meets USDA and HHS dietary guidelines and claims to conduct “rigorous food safety testing.” However, the product’s contamination levels allegedly violate these assurances. Plaintiff alleges that Huel’s omissions and deceptive advertising mislead consumers into believing the product is safe and health-promoting, when in reality it poses risks of neurological damage, kidney harm, and other toxic effects. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, claiming that consumers paid a premium price for a product that is unsafe and unfit for human consumption. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate disclosure of heavy metal content and truthful advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper. 

42. Quinn v. BevMo! Inc. 

Plaintiff: Christina Quinn 

Defendant: BevMo! Inc. 

Product Focus: BevMo! branded beverages and reusable plastic bags  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Christina Quinn brings this class action against BevMo! Inc., alleging that the company engaged in deceptive “greenwashing” practices by labeling and advertising various products and packaging as “Recyclable” when, in fact, they are not recyclable under California law or in practice. The complaint cites numerous BevMo! items—including Zing Zang Bloody Mary Mix, Orange Juice, Oat Milk, and Reusable Plastic Bags—which feature recycling symbols and messaging suggesting environmental sustainability. However, according to the complaint, these items are made from multi-layer plastics and films that are rejected by most California recycling facilities and therefore end up in landfills or incinerators. 

Plaintiff further alleges that BevMo! illegally charges California Redemption Value (CRV) fees on products that are not eligible under state law, compounding the deception. The complaint references California’s 2025 CalRecycle report confirming that flexible plastic packaging and plastic bags “cannot be recycled through curbside programs”. Plaintiff contends that BevMo!’s use of the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol and sustainability marketing misleads consumers into believing their purchases are environmentally responsible. Causes of action include violations of California’s Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17200, covering false advertising and unfair business practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief prohibiting false recyclability claims and illegal CRV charges, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems proper. 

43. Dimino v. Food 4 Less of California, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Glen Dimino 

Defendant: Food 4 Less of California, Inc. and Food 4 Less GM, Inc. 

Product Focus: Food 4 Less (F4L) private-label goods and packaging  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Glen Dimino brings this class action alleging that Food 4 Less engages in deceptive “greenwashing” practices by marketing its private-label products and packaging as “Recyclable” when they do not meet the criteria for recyclability under California law (pages 2–3). The complaint asserts that F4L products use multi-layer flexible plastic films and bags that are not accepted by California’s recycling facilities and cannot be processed by curbside recycling programs. Despite this, the packaging features the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol and the statement “100% Recyclable,” misleading consumers into believing that these items can be recycled. 

The lawsuit further alleges that F4L illegally charges California Redemption Value (CRV) fees on beverages like Zing Zang Cocktail Mix, which are not eligible for the state’s CRV program. Plaintiff contends that these practices deceive environmentally conscious consumers and result in the sale of non-recyclable products at a premium price, while promoting false environmental benefits. The complaint cites the 2025 CalRecycle report confirming that flexible plastic packaging “is not recyclable in California,” directly contradicting F4L’s labeling claims. Causes of action include violations of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17200, which prohibit false advertising and unfair business practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false recyclability claims and illegal CRV charges, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper. 

44. Gouldbourne v. Huel Inc. 

Plaintiff: Jessica Gouldbourne 

Defendant: Huel Inc. 

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition Protein Powder  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Jessica Gouldbourne brings this class action against Huel Inc., alleging that the company falsely markets its Huel Black Edition Protein Powder as a clean, safe, and healthy meal replacement, while concealing the fact that it contains unsafe levels of lead, a toxic heavy metal and known neurotoxin. The complaint cites testing published by Consumer Reports and an October 2025 New York Times investigation, which found that Huel’s products contained 6.3 micrograms of lead per serving—over 12 times the daily limit recommended by food safety experts—and elevated levels of cadmium and inorganic arsenic. 

According to the complaint, Huel’s marketing statements—such as “Crafted using the finest ingredients in nature,” “Over 160 health benefits,” and “Third-party tested”—lead consumers to believe the product is safe and scientifically verified, while omitting the presence or risk of heavy metal contamination. The lawsuit argues that these omissions are materially deceptive, especially given the severe cognitive, neurological, and developmental harm associated with lead exposure. Plaintiff alleges that consumers, including herself, paid a premium price of approximately $59.50 per bag, believing they were purchasing a high-quality, health-conscious product, when in reality it was adulterated and unsafe for consumption. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of heavy metal contamination and accurate safety labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

45. Castillo v. Safeway, Inc. & Better Living Brands LLC 

Plaintiff: Julie Brittany Castillo 

Defendants: Safeway, Inc. and Better Living Brands LLC 

Product Focus: Safeway private-label products and packaging  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Julie Brittany Castillo brings this class action against Safeway, Inc. and its affiliated brand Better Living Brands LLC, alleging that the defendants engage in false and misleading “greenwashing” practices by labeling and marketing various Safeway products as “Recyclable” when, in fact, they are not recyclable under California law. The complaint specifies that items such as Coffee Pods (K-Cups) and Reusable Plastic Bags bear the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol or related recyclable claims, despite being made of multi-layer plastics and composite materials that are rejected by most recycling facilities statewide. 

According to the complaint, Safeway’s K-Cups cannot be recycled because municipal recycling facilities lack the technology to separate aluminum lids from plastic bodies, rendering the product non-recyclable in practice. Plaintiff also claims that Safeway illegally charges California Redemption Value (CRV) fees on non-qualifying products, such as Zing Zang Bloody Mary Mix, violating state consumer protection laws (page 7). The lawsuit argues that these practices deceive consumers into paying a premium price for products that falsely claim environmental benefits, violating California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 and 17200. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false recyclability and CRV claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

46. Cahill v. Lipo-Flavonoid LLC and Bridges Consumer Healthcare, LLC 

Plaintiff: Kirk Cahill 

Defendants: Lipo-Flavonoid LLC and Bridges Consumer Healthcare, LLC 

Product Focus: Lipo-Flavonoid dietary supplement  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Kirk Cahill brings this class action against Lipo-Flavonoid LLC and its parent company Bridges Consumer Healthcare, alleging that they falsely market Lipo-Flavonoid as a clinically proven and doctor-recommended treatment for tinnitus despite no reliable scientific evidence supporting such claims. The product’s packaging prominently states “#1 ENT Doctor Recommended” and “Clinically Shown to Help Manage Ear Ringing,” suggesting medical endorsement and proven efficacy. However, the complaint cites multiple studies, including a 2016 Journal of the American Academy of Audiology trial, which found that Lipo-Flavonoid performed no better than a placebo. 

The lawsuit further explains that the National Advertising Division (NAD) and National Advertising Review Board (NARB) previously investigated the product’s marketing in 2015–2016 and concluded that claims about tinnitus relief were unsubstantiated. Despite these rulings, the defendants allegedly revived the same deceptive advertising following a corporate rebranding in 2021. The complaint also challenges the company’s so-called “SILENT” study, calling it a marketing ploy based on biased data and an extremely small sample size. Additionally, the product’s “Money-Back Guarantee” is described as misleading, with restrictive refund terms designed to deter consumers from seeking reimbursement. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for false and deceptive practices and breach of express warranty. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, injunctive relief prohibiting false medical and clinical claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

47. M.G., J.H., and C.B. v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc. d/b/a Se7en and Krave Hydroxy 

Plaintiffs: M.G., J.H., and C.B. 

Defendant: Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc., doing business as Se7en and Krave Hydroxy 

Product Focus: Se7en and Krave Hydroxy 7-Hydroxymitragynine (“7-OH”) tablets and shots  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs bring this class action against Ashlynn Marketing Group, alleging that the company deceptively markets and sells its Se7en and Krave Hydroxy products as safe, natural, kratom-based energy supplements, when in reality they contain highly addictive synthetic opioids, specifically 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). The complaint states that 7-OH is a potent mu-opioid receptor agonist—up to 13 times stronger than morphine—that produces the same dependency, withdrawal symptoms, and euphoria as traditional opioids. Despite this, the products are sold in gas stations, smoke shops, and online without any meaningful warnings, dosage information, or prescription oversight. 

The plaintiffs allege that Ashlynn Marketing intentionally concealed the addictive and dangerous nature of its products, exploiting consumers’ trust in herbal or “kratom-derived” supplements. The products’ packaging and marketing emphasize terms like “natural,” “energy,” and “relaxation,” and feature bright, candy-like designs that mimic common beverages and energy shots. In contrast, the warnings about the products’ opioid content are buried in fine print or entirely absent. According to the complaint, these deceptive tactics led to severe physical dependence, withdrawal symptoms, and financial and emotional harm among consumers. Causes of action include violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring full disclosure of 7-OH’s opioid properties and addiction risks, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief deemed proper by the Court. 

48. Marshall & Johnson v. Huel Inc. 

Plaintiffs: Jake Marshall and Leah Johnson 

Defendant: Huel Inc. 

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition Powdered Meal Replacement  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs Jake Marshall and Leah Johnson bring this class action against Huel Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by marketing its Huel Black Edition powder as a safe, healthy, and nutritionally complete meal, when in reality it contains dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. The complaint cites independent testing published by Consumer Reports in October 2025, which found that a single 90-gram serving of the product contains 6.3 micrograms of lead—more than 12 times California’s Proposition 65 daily limit—and 9.2 micrograms of cadmium, over double the public health threshold. 

The lawsuit asserts that Huel markets its product with claims such as “Formulated by Leading Nutrition Experts,” “Backed by Science,” “Third-Party Tested,” and “Highest Quality Standards,” which lead consumers to believe the product is rigorously tested and free from contaminants. Plaintiffs argue these representations are false, as Huel’s testing allegedly failed to detect or disclose heavy metal contamination. The complaint emphasizes that no level of lead or cadmium exposure is safe, citing findings from the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plaintiffs allege violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of implied warranties, asserting that consumers paid a premium price for a product that is unsafe for human consumption. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring full disclosure of heavy metal content and truthful advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper. 

49. Barton & Fahrnkopf v. Colgate-Palmolive Company 

Plaintiffs: Nathan Barton and Cynthia Fahrnkopf 

Defendant: Colgate-Palmolive Company 

Product Focus: Hello Kids Fluoride Toothpaste  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs Nathan Barton and Cynthia Fahrnkopf bring this class action against Colgate-Palmolive Company, alleging that the company falsely markets its Hello Kids fluoride toothpaste as safe and suitable for children while failing to disclose that the product contains unsafe levels of lead. The toothpaste, sold in flavors such as Unicorn Sparkle (Bubble Gum), Smiling Shark (Fruit Punch), and Dragon Dazzle (Blue Raspberry), is promoted using bright colors, animal imagery, and slogans designed to attract children. Labels claim the toothpaste contains “natural flavor,” “no preservatives,” and “no artificial sweeteners,” reinforcing its image as a wholesome, child-friendly product. 

Independent laboratory testing commissioned by plaintiffs in April and September 2025 revealed that the toothpaste contains between 236 and 658 parts per billion (ppb) of lead, levels that exceed FDA guidance for products likely to be consumed by children. According to the complaint, the Wild Strawberry flavor had the highest lead content (0.329 mcg/day per use). The plaintiffs allege that even trace amounts of lead are dangerous to children, as the metal accumulates in the body and can cause neurological, developmental, and behavioral harm. The complaint also highlights that toothpaste exposure is particularly hazardous because lead is absorbed sublingually (through the mouth’s tissues), bypassing the body’s natural filtration systems. 

The plaintiffs claim that Colgate-Palmolive knowingly sold these products while representing them as “safe,” “fluoride free,” or “for kids ages 2+.” Causes of action include violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate safety disclosures and reformulation of products, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

50. Ripa v. The Campbell’s Company 

Plaintiff: Rozaliya Ripa 

Defendant: The Campbell’s Company 

Product Focus: Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa brings this class action against The Campbell’s Company, alleging that the company falsely and misleadingly markets its Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips as containing “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives” when, in fact, the products contain synthetic citric acid, which functions as a preservative. The complaint explains that although citric acid occurs naturally in citrus fruit, the type used in processed foods is industrially manufactured using genetically modified sugar fermented with Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined with petroleum-derived chemicals such as n-octyl alcohol, calcium hydroxide, and sulfuric acid. 

According to the complaint, citric acid serves multiple preservative purposes in the chips, including inhibiting spoilage, controlling pH, and preventing oxidation, making the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim materially false. Plaintiff alleges that Campbell’s leveraged this claim to target health-conscious consumers and justify a premium price. The suit argues that consumers were deceived into believing the chips contained only natural ingredients, when in fact they were chemically preserved. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, as well as breach of express warranty, for misleading product labeling and advertising. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive “No Preservatives” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

51. Taylor v. Haleon US Inc. 

Plaintiff: Tiffany Taylor 

Defendant: Haleon US Inc. 

Product Focus: Emergen-C Immune Support Gummies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor brings this class action against Haleon US Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers about the quantity and strength of vitamin C provided in each package of Emergen-C Immune Support Gummies. The product label prominently displays “750 mg Vitamin C” and “45 Gummies,” implying that each gummy contains 750 mg of vitamin C. However, the back label reveals in fine print that the serving size is three gummies, meaning that each gummy contains only one-third of the stated amount—or 250 mg per gummy. 

According to the complaint, this labeling practice causes consumers to overestimate both the dosage and value of the product. Plaintiff contends that Haleon’s omission of “per serving” language on the front label constitutes false and misleading advertising under New York law. The complaint cites consumer research and expert commentary confirming that most shoppers reasonably expect the nutrient amount printed on the front of a supplement bottle to correspond to the amount per pill, chewable, or gummy. Plaintiff alleges that this deception caused her to pay a premium price of $16.99 for a product that contained less vitamin C than represented. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate nutrient labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

52. Mallozzi v. IRIS USA, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Valentina Mallozzi 

Defendant: IRIS USA, Inc. 

Product Focus: IRIS Airtight Pet Food Containers  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Valentina Mallozzi brings this class action against IRIS USA, Inc., alleging that the company manufactures and sells defective pet food containers that pose a serious risk of suffocation and death to household pets. The complaint centers on the IRIS Airtight Pet Food Container, which features a swinging latch lid designed to seal tightly. Plaintiff claims that this locking mechanism is defective because it can trap small animals inside the container, preventing escape and leading to suffocation. 

According to the complaint, plaintiff’s kitten, Ace, died after becoming trapped inside one such IRIS container when the lid automatically closed and locked. The lawsuit alleges that IRIS knew or should have known of this defect due to numerous consumer complaints, social media reports, and a 2025 Center for Pet Safety (CPS) report highlighting the danger. Despite these warnings, IRIS continued to market the containers as “airtight” and “safe for pets.” Plaintiff contends that the company’s failure to warn consumers or redesign the locking system constitutes gross negligence, fraudulent concealment, and breach of warranty. The complaint further argues that IRIS’s advertising—claiming the containers “Keep Paws Out”—misleads consumers by implying added safety rather than an undisclosed hazard. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring IRIS to issue safety warnings and recall the defective containers, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

53. Worrell v. Natrol LLC 

Plaintiff: Vanessa Worrell 

Defendant: Natrol LLC 

Product Focus: Natrol Melatonin 10mg Gummies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Vanessa Worrell brings this class action against Natrol LLC, alleging that the company falsely and misleadingly markets its Natrol Melatonin 10mg Gummies by suggesting that each gummy contains 10 mg of melatonin when, in fact, the stated dosage refers to two gummies per serving. The front label prominently claims, “10 mg Per Serving” alongside “60 Gummies,” leading reasonable consumers to believe each gummy delivers 10 mg of melatonin. However, the fine print on the back reveals a serving size of two gummies, meaning each container provides only 30 servings, each totaling 10 mg of melatonin. 

According to the complaint, this labeling practice constitutes misbranding under New York law because it provides a “false indication” of quantity and potency. The plaintiff argues that the omission of clear serving-size information on the front panel misleads consumers, causing them to believe they are receiving double the product’s actual melatonin content. The complaint highlights that competitors such as GNC and Nature Made clearly disclose “per 2 gummies” on their front labels, demonstrating industry practice for transparency. Worrell claims she and other consumers paid a premium price of approximately $15.99 based on Natrol’s deceptive presentation. The lawsuit asserts violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive business practices and false advertising. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate serving-size disclosure, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

54. Keirsted v. Kettle & Fire, Inc. 

Plaintiff: Wendy Keirsted 

Defendant: Kettle & Fire, Inc. 

Product Focus: Kettle & Fire Classic Organic Chicken Bone Broth  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Wendy Keirsted brings this class action against Kettle & Fire, Inc., alleging that the company falsely and misleadingly markets its Classic Organic Chicken Bone Broth as containing 19 grams of protein per container when, in fact, independent testing revealed the actual amount to be significantly lower. The complaint cites a 2025 ConsumerLab analysis showing that the product contained only 14.6 grams of protein per 500 mL carton, approximately 76.7% of the amount claimed. The findings were confirmed by a second laboratory, contradicting Kettle & Fire’s nutritional labeling and advertising. 

The complaint argues that the misrepresentation renders the product misbranded under both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Florida law, which require that protein declarations on food labels reflect actual nutrient content within an acceptable margin of error (no less than 80% of the labeled value). Plaintiff alleges that the misleading label caused consumers to pay a premium price of approximately $8.09 per 16.9 fl. oz. carton, believing they were purchasing a superior source of protein compared to competitors like Pacific Organic or Kirkland Signature, which retail for much less. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), arguing that the overstated protein claim was a material factor in consumers’ purchasing decisions. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein labeling and corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper. 

Risk Reduction Tips for Food & Beverage Brands 

• Verify Label Claims – Only use “All Natural,” “No Preservatives,” or similar terms when supported by testing and compliant with FDA standards. 

• Match Content to Claims – Ensure protein, vitamin, and nutrient values reflect verified lab results. 

• Check Sustainability Messaging – Confirm “Recyclable” or “Eco-Friendly” statements meet state recycling and labeling laws. 

• Strengthen Safety Testing – Routinely test for heavy metals, contaminants, and other risks—especially in supplements and children’s products. 

• Clarify Serving Sizes – Clearly display nutrient amounts per serving and per piece to prevent misleading impressions. 

• Assess Additive Functions – Identify whether ingredients act as preservatives or flavor enhancers and label accordingly.