Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, November 2025

The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits filed in November 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. Glazer v. Costco Wholesale Corp. 

Plaintiff: Ariel Glazer 

Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation 

Product Focus: Kirkland Signature Tequila Line  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Ariel Glazer brings this nationwide class action against Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging that the company falsely markets its Kirkland Signature Tequilas as “100% Blue Weber Agave” when laboratory testing revealed the products are adulterated with ethanol derived from non-agave sources. The complaint states that Costco sells multiple tequila varieties—including Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Cristalino, and Extra Añejo—each bearing “100% de Agave” and “Hecho en Jalisco, Mexico” labeling. However, independent Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) isotope testing demonstrated that the ethanol in Kirkland Añejo Cristalino contains carbon signatures consistent with cane or corn alcohol, in violation of both U.S. and Mexican tequila standards. 

The suit explains that true “100% agave” tequila may not contain sugars from non-agave plants under Mexico’s NOM-006-SCFI-2012 Tequila Regulation. Plaintiff alleges that Costco’s mislabeling deceived consumers into paying premium prices for what they believed was authentic, high-quality tequila made exclusively from Blue Weber agave. The complaint asserts that all Kirkland tequila products originate from the same base spirit, meaning the entire line is potentially adulterated. Causes of action include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate ingredient disclosure and truthful labeling, attorneys’ fees, and other relief deemed just and proper by the Court. 

2. Garland et al. v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC  

Plaintiffs: Chelsea Garland, Estelita Rey, and Zachary Williams  

Defendants: Mead Johnson & Company LLC; Mead Johnson Nutrition Company; Reckitt Benckiser LLC  

Product Focus: Enfagrow PREMIUM Toddler Nutritional Drink and Enfagrow NeuroPro Toddler Nutritional Drink  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Mead Johnson unlawfully and deceptively markets its Enfagrow toddler drinks by displaying nutrient content claims such as “IMMUNE HEALTH,” “Supports BRAIN DEVELOPMENT,” “22 NUTRIENTS to help support growth,” and similar statements on the front labels. According to the complaint, federal law prohibits nutrient content claims on foods intended for children under two years old, and the products’ “1+ Years” and “Toddler” labeling makes clear that they are marketed for that age group. Plaintiffs argue that these claims mislead parents into believing the products provide health and developmental benefits, despite federal dietary guidelines indicating that such claims can be inappropriate and potentially harmful for infants and toddlers. They further assert that the products contain added sugars and unnecessary fortification that does not meet FDA’s Fortification Policy, contributing to the products being misbranded and unlawful to sell.  

The complaint also cites guidance from the FDA, USDA, and American Academy of Pediatrics, claiming that older-infant/toddler formulas are not nutritionally necessary and may mislead parents. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the front-label claims, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased the products absent these representations. Causes of action include violations of the CLRA, UCL, FAL, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, based on misleading marketing and unlawful nutrient content claims.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief barring unlawful nutrient claims, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, and all further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

3. Bakker & Lundgren v. Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and BRC Inc.  

Plaintiffs: Justin Bakker and Noah Lundgren  

Defendants: Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and BRC Inc.  

Product Focus: Black Rifle Coffee Company packaged coffee products  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Black Rifle Coffee Company deceptively markets its coffee as American-made by prominently displaying the phrase “America’s Coffee” and the American flag on the front of its packaging. According to the complaint, these representations constitute unqualified “Made in USA” claims under both California law and FTC regulations. However, the lawsuit asserts that none of the coffee beans used by Black Rifle Coffee are grown, sourced, or processed in the United States, and that all meaningful production—including growing, harvesting, fermentation, drying, milling, and transformation of coffee cherries into green coffee beans—occurs abroad. The only U.S.-based activity is roasting and bagging, which plaintiffs argue does not satisfy federal or state requirements for a “Made in USA” representation.  

The complaint contends that reasonable consumers rely on U.S.-origin claims, and that plaintiffs—one in California and one in New York—purchased the products believing the coffee was American-grown and American-made. They claim they paid a price premium for what they thought was domestically produced coffee and would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the products had they known the beans were entirely foreign-sourced. Causes of action include violations of California Bus. & Prof. Code §17533.7, CLRA, FAL, UCL, and New York GBL §§349–350, as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief barring unqualified “Made in USA” claims, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

4. Lebron v. Walmart Inc.  

Plaintiff: Laurie Lebron  

Defendant: Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: Parent’s Choice Pediatric Shake – Vanilla  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Walmart falsely markets its Parent’s Choice Pediatric Shake as containing “No Synthetic Colors, Flavors, or Sweeteners”, despite the product containing maltodextrin—the second-largest ingredient. According to the complaint, maltodextrin is a highly processed carbohydrate created through chemical hydrolysis of corn starch, involving enzymes or acids, ion-exchange purification, and spray drying, resulting in a synthetic ingredient capable of functioning as a sweetener. The suit argues that this contradicts the front-label claim and renders the product misbranded, misleading consumers who seek to avoid artificial sweeteners and synthetic additives.  

The complaint further alleges that Walmart’s labeling caused consumers to pay a price premium of approximately $9.48, believing the product was free of synthetic sweeteners. Plaintiff claims she relied on the “No Synthetic Colors, Flavors, or Sweeteners” statement when purchasing the pediatric shake between 2022 and 2025. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, asserting that Walmart’s labeling and omissions were materially misleading and caused economic injury by overstating the product’s quality and ingredient integrity.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages representing the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

5. Cohen v. Kettle & Fire, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Layla Cohen  

Defendant: Kettle & Fire, Inc.  

Product Focus: Kettle & Fire Chicken Bone Broth and substantially similar bone broth products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Kettle & Fire falsely and misleadingly represents that its Classic Chicken Bone Broth contains 19 grams of protein per 16.9 oz container, when independent testing shows the product contains significantly less protein. Third-party testing by ConsumerLab in April 2025 found only 14.6 grams of protein—approximately 76% of the labeled amount—and confirmatory testing commissioned by plaintiff’s counsel found 15.85 grams, averaging below the FDA’s required 80% minimum for Class II nutrients. These results indicate that the product is underfilled for protein, making the front-label statements materially misleading.  

The complaint asserts that Kettle & Fire uses nearly identical protein claims (17–19g) across its bone broth line—including Mushroom Chicken, Turmeric Ginger, and Coconut Curry & Lime varieties—despite producing them under the same manufacturing conditions and testing protocols. Plaintiff argues that the mislabeled protein content caused consumers to pay a premium price based on false nutrient information and that the products are misbranded under federal and California law. Causes of action include violations of the CLRA, UCL, FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.  

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

6. Hussain v. Wise Foods, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Mo Hussain  

Defendant: Wise Foods, Inc.  

Product Focus: Deep River Snacks Potato Chips  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Mo Hussain alleges that Wise Foods falsely and misleadingly markets its Deep River Snacks potato chips as free from artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives, and as containing “only real ingredients.” According to the complaint, the products in fact contain synthetic citric acid, a chemically processed ingredient produced via industrial fermentation of Aspergillus niger and refined with solvents such as n-octyl alcohol and isoparaffinic petroleum hydrocarbons. The suit states that FDA has determined citric acid is synthetic, not natural, and has previously issued warning letters indicating that products containing citric acid cannot be labeled “all natural.”  

Plaintiff claims he purchased the chips believing the representations were truthful and would not have bought them—or would have paid less—had he known they contained synthetic additives. The complaint asserts that Wise Foods leveraged consumer demand for natural products and charged a price premium while concealing the presence of synthetic citric acid. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and breach of express warranty, alleging that the misrepresentations were material and caused economic injury.  

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

7. Tlaib & Kardel v. Huel Inc.  

Plaintiffs: Mohamad Tlaib and Amy Kardel  

Defendant: Huel Inc.  

Product Focus: Huel Black Edition meal replacement powder   

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Huel Inc. deceptively markets its “Huel Black Edition” powdered meal product as a healthy, safe, and nutritionally complete food despite containing dangerous levels of heavy metals, including 6.3 micrograms of lead per serving and 9.2 micrograms of cadmium. According to the complaint, independent testing published by Consumer Reports in October 2025 showed that a single serving exceeds 1,290% of the daily lead limit recommended by experts and delivers over double the cadmium level considered harmful for daily intake. Plaintiffs argue that Huel represents the product as a safe and complete meal—“This is a meal. Not a protein shake,” “nutritionally complete,” “formulated by leading nutrition experts,” and “third-party tested”—while concealing that its product exposes consumers to unsafe toxic metal levels. Huel even promoted the product as suitable for pregnant people, further reinforcing its claimed safety. 

Plaintiffs assert that they consumed the product daily for extended periods believing it was safe based on Huel’s advertising, and that they paid a premium price for what they thought was a rigorously tested, healthy product. The suit brings claims under New York GBL §§ 349–350, California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, Illinois’ ICFA and UDTPA, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty, alleging that Huel knowingly failed to disclose these contaminants and misrepresented the product’s safety, causing economic harm and risking consumers’ health.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful safety disclosures and cessation of misleading marketing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.  

8. Ebanks v. Ziyad Brothers Importing LLC  

Plaintiff: Nicole Ebanks  

Defendant: Ziyad Brothers Importing LLC  

Product Focus: Ziyad Brand Guava Nectar  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Ziyad Brothers deceptively markets its Guava Nectar as containing “No Preservatives or Artificial Colors Added,” despite the product containing citric acid, which she asserts is a synthetic preservative. According to the complaint, the ingredient list printed on the bottle includes citric acid, and extensive allegations describe citric acid as a chemically manufactured industrial compound derived from Aspergillus niger (black mold), produced through fermentation, multiple chemical reactions, artificial mineral salts, and purification steps. The complaint explains that citric acid functions in beverages as an acidulant, antioxidant, antimicrobial agent, buffering agent, chelating agent, and anti-browning agent, all of which help extend shelf life, prevent spoilage, maintain color, and preserve product quality—functions consistent with a preservative. 

Plaintiff argues that the front-label promise of “No Preservatives” misleads consumers who actively try to avoid synthetic or chemical additives. She contends that the presence and preservative functions of citric acid render the product misbranded under New York Agriculture & Markets Law and that Ziyad’s labeling enabled it to charge a premium price of approximately $5.99 . Plaintiff asserts violations of GBL §§ 349 and 350, alleging economic injury because she believed the product to be free of preservative ingredients when she purchased it between 2022 and 2025 in New York.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief barring deceptive labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

9. B.B. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: B.B., a minor, by and through his father and guardian, Michael Tyrone Bostick  

Defendants: 
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group; Nurture, Inc.; Plum, PBC; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A broad range of baby food products (jars, pouches, cereals, puffs, teething snacks, and formulas)   

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that he consumed dozens of baby food products manufactured by the listed defendants—including fruit and vegetable purées, grain blends, toddler snacks, and infant cereals—during infancy and early childhood, and that these products contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. According to the complaint, exposure to these contaminants was a substantial contributing factor in causing neurological injuries and behavioral impairments ultimately diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The allegations are based on extensive product-specific consumption charts included in the complaint, documenting the plaintiff’s ingestion of over 300 individual baby food items, many of which have been identified in congressional and consumer-advocacy reports for elevated heavy-metal content.  

The complaint further asserts that each defendant knew or should have known that their baby food products contained harmful levels of toxic metals, yet failed to warn caregivers and continued to market the products as safe for infants and toddlers. Plaintiff relies on allegations incorporated from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint in MDL 3101, asserting violations based on strict products liability, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect, negligence, and other related theories. Plaintiff claims that, had proper warnings been provided, he would not have been exposed to the baby foods that allegedly contributed to his developmental harm.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for past and future medical care, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and economic losses; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the Court.  

10. West v. Cooper Street Cookies, LLC  

Plaintiff: Drew West  

Defendant: Cooper Street Cookies, LLC  

Product Focus: Cooper Street brand cookies  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Cooper Street Cookies falsely and deceptively markets several varieties of its twice-baked cookies as containing “NOTHING ARTIFICIAL”, when in fact the products contain sodium acid pyrophosphate, identified in the complaint as a synthetic food additive. According to the allegations, sodium acid pyrophosphate is a commercially manufactured leavening agent that the FDA classifies as synthetic, and its presence directly contradicts the product’s front-label representation. The complaint cites prior FDA enforcement actions involving similar “all natural” claims to argue that consumers reasonably understand “nothing artificial” to mean the absence of synthetic ingredients.  

Plaintiff claims that he purchased Cooper Street’s Orange Cranberry Twice Baked Cookies at a Schnucks store in Missouri based on the “NOTHING ARTIFICIAL” labeling, paying a premium price of $3.00 per bag. He asserts that neither he nor any reasonable consumer would expect a synthetic leavening ingredient in a product labeled as containing nothing artificial. Causes of action include violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, alleging economic injury because the cookies were worth less than represented and that Cooper Street profited from misleading labeling.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, actual and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive “nothing artificial” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.  

11. Dewitt v. La Terra Fina USA LLC  

Plaintiff: Endia Dewitt  

Defendant: La Terra Fina USA LLC  

Product Focus: La Terra Fina Caramelized Onion with Roasted Garlic Dip & Spread  

Summary: 
Plaintiff Endia Dewitt alleges that La Terra Fina falsely and misleadingly markets its Caramelized Onion with Roasted Garlic Dip & Spread as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Colors or Preservatives,” despite the product containing citric acid, identified in the complaint as a synthetic and industrially produced preservative. According to the filing, the ingredient list reveals citric acid, and the complaint devotes multiple sections explaining that modern citric acid is not derived from citrus fruit but is manufactured using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and processed through chemical reactions, purifications, and refining steps, resulting in a non-natural chemical additive. 

The complaint asserts that citric acid performs multiple preservative functions in the product, including antimicrobial effects, pH control, antioxidation, flavor stabilization, and shelf-life extension. The filing emphasizes that such functions contradict La Terra Fina’s “No Preservatives” claim, rendering the product misbranded under New York law. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the product at a premium price of approximately $6.59, relying on the front-label representations. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, claiming that the misrepresentation caused consumers to pay more than the product’s actual value.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages equal to the price premium paid, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “No Preservatives” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other relief the Court deems proper.  

12. Sweeney v. Post Consumer Brands LLC 

Plaintiff: Erin Sweeney 

Defendant: Post Consumer Brands LLC 

Product Focus: Fruity Pebbles Family Size Cereal  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Post Consumer Brands falsely and misleadingly represents its Fruity Pebbles Family Size cereal as containing 15 servings per container and providing specific calorie, sodium, and sugar amounts per 1-cup serving, when independent scientific testing showed the product contains substantially fewer servings and higher nutrient values than stated. According to the complaint, laboratory testing conducted in July 2022 and again in September 2025 revealed that the cereal contains at most 12.2 servings—a 24.31% shortfall—and that the mass of a true 1-cup serving is 27.68% greater than the amount used to calculate the Nutrition Facts panel. As a result, each actual 1-cup serving contains significantly more calories, sodium, and total sugars than the label represents. 

Plaintiff claims she and other consumers relied on the prominent “Family Size” and nutritional representations when purchasing the product, believing the cereal contained the advertised number of servings and nutrient amounts. The complaint asserts that Post had exclusive knowledge of the true serving quantities and nutritional values but failed to disclose them, causing consumers to pay a price premium for a misrepresented product. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violations, and unjust enrichment, alleging that the cereal is misbranded and that consumers were deprived of the full value of their purchases. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution of the price premium paid, compensatory and statutory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

13. H.H. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: H.H., a minor, by and through her mother and guardian, Katy Grabowski  

Defendants: Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Nurture, LLC; Plum, PBC; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A wide range of baby food products   

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that she consumed numerous baby food products manufactured by the various defendants during infancy and early childhood and that these products contained harmful levels of toxic heavy metals. According to the complaint, exposure to these contaminants—through jars, pouches, cereals, snacks, and formula products listed in the extensive tables—was a substantial contributing factor in causing the minor plaintiff to suffer neurological and developmental injuries. The complaint asserts that this exposure resulted in conditions later diagnosed as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  

The plaintiff incorporates allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint in MDL 3101, claiming that each defendant knew or should have known their baby foods contained toxic heavy metals yet failed to warn caregivers or prevent the products’ sale for infant consumption. Causes of action asserted against all defendants include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, general negligence, and other related theories. Plaintiff alleges that, had adequate warnings been provided, she would not have been exposed to the contaminated baby foods.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical care, pain and suffering, emotional and developmental harm; punitive damages; disgorgement; and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

14. J.D. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: J.D., a minor, by and through guardian ad litem Lisa Doyle  

Defendants: Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Danone Nutrition Nederland BV; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group; Nurture, LLC; Nestlé USA; Nestlé Enterprises; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A wide range of baby food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that he consumed hundreds of baby food products from multiple manufacturers between 2011 and 2013, including extensive lists of Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain, Nurture (Happy Baby), Plum, Sprout Foods, Sun-Maid, and Walmart-brand infant and toddler foods. The product charts detail jars, tubs, pouches, cereals, snacks, “puffs,” toddler meals, baked goods, and infant formulas consumed during infancy. The complaint alleges these products contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, and that exposure during critical developmental periods was a substantial contributing factor in causing the minor plaintiff to develop Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). 

The lawsuit incorporates allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint (MDL 3101), asserting that each defendant knew or should have known their products contained harmful metal levels yet failed to warn caregivers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants marketed their foods as safe and appropriate for infants despite the presence of contaminants that can impair neurological development. Causes of action include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent manufacturing, negligent design, and general negligence, asserted against each defendant as applicable 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical and developmental harm, punitive damages, disgorgement, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

15. J.S. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: J.S., a minor, by and through guardian ad litem Kristinna Sanchez  

Defendants: Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Danone Nutrition Nederland BV; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Nurture LLC (Happy Baby); Nestlé USA; Nestlé Enterprises; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A wide range of baby food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that she consumed numerous baby food products from multiple major manufacturers—including Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain, Nurture (Happy Baby), Plum, Sprout Foods, Sun-Maid, and Walmart—during infancy and early childhood. The product charts list hundreds of jars, purées, cereal varieties, fruit and vegetable blends, snack products, “puffs,” toddler meals, and infant formulas that plaintiff consumed between 2013 and 2016. The complaint asserts that these products contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals (lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury), and that this exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing neurological and developmental injuries, ultimately resulting in diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  

The lawsuit incorporates the allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint in MDL 3101, asserting that each defendant knew or should have known that its baby food products contained harmful heavy metals, yet failed to warn caregivers, continued selling the products for infant consumption, and represented them as safe, nutritious, and appropriate for early childhood development. Causes of action asserted include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design, negligent manufacturing, and general negligence.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical and developmental harm, punitive damages, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief the Court deems appropriate.  

16. Sylvain v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Joel Sylvain 

Defendant: Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. (d/b/a Lunazul Tequila) 

Product Focus: Lunazul Tequila varieties (Blanco, Reposado, Añejo, Cristalino, Humoso)  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Heaven Hill deceptively markets its Lunazul tequila products as “100% de Agave” and free of additives, when in fact the products contain ethanol derived from non-agave sources. According to the complaint, Lunazul bottles carry multiple “100% de Agave” statements and website representations such as “All Agave. No Extras.” and “Handcrafted with 100% Blue Weber agave and zero additives.” Plaintiff purchased Lunazul Blanco in 2025 relying on these claims. 

Independent Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) testing commissioned by Plaintiff found that the ethanol in the tested Lunazul bottle displayed carbon isotope ratios consistent with C4 plants—such as cane sugar or corn—rather than Blue Weber agave, a C3 plant. The complaint explains that this testing is a scientifically recognized method for identifying tequila adulteration. Because 100% agave tequila must be made exclusively from sugars derived from Blue Weber agave under Mexico’s NOM-006 Tequila Standard, Plaintiff alleges that the tested Lunazul product was adulterated and not legally “100% de Agave.” Plaintiff claims he and other consumers paid a premium price for tequila they believed was authentic and pure, and would not have purchased the products had they known they were adulterated. Causes of action include negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).  

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

17. Albrigo & Mitchell v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. 

Plaintiffs: Laura Albrigo and Andrea Mitchell 

Defendant: Whole Foods Market, Inc. 

Product Focus: 365 Organic Orange Juice with Vitamin D  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Whole Foods falsely and misleadingly markets its 365 Organic Orange Juice with Vitamin D as containing 5 micrograms of Vitamin D per serving, despite independent laboratory testing showing that the product contains zero Vitamin D. The complaint states that Whole Foods prominently highlights “Vitamin D” on the front label and repeats the 5 mcg/serving claim on the Nutrition Facts panel, encouraging consumers to rely on the product as a meaningful source of this essential nutrient. Plaintiffs claim they purchased the juice for its advertised vitamin content but were deprived of the nutritional benefits they sought because the product contained none of the represented vitamin. 

The suit asserts that Whole Foods controls the amount of Vitamin D added during manufacturing and knew or should have known that the product did not contain the advertised amount. Plaintiffs argue that the misrepresentation is material because consumers frequently rely on fortified juices to meet recommended daily Vitamin D intake, particularly given that millions of Americans cannot consume dairy-based sources. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and breach of express warranty, asserting the product is misbranded and sold at a price premium based on false nutrient representations. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate Vitamin D labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court. 

18. M.Y. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: M.Y., a minor, by and through guardian ad litem Maryann Yates  

Defendants: 
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Danone Nutrition Nederland BV; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Nurture, LLC; Plum, PBC; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A broad range of baby food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that he consumed extensive quantities of baby food products made by all defendants during infancy and early childhood and that these foods contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. The detailed product charts show that plaintiff consumed well over 200 individual items, spanning fruit and vegetable purées, mixed blends, cereals, puffs, bars, snacks, toddler meals, and infant formulas marketed for safe consumption by infants. The complaint asserts that chronic exposure to these contaminants during critical stages of neurological development was a substantial contributing factor in causing the minor plaintiff to develop Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  

The complaint incorporates allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint (MDL 3101), asserting that each defendant knew or should have known that their products contained harmful levels of heavy metals but failed to warn caregivers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants marketed their products as nutritious and appropriate for babies despite documented contamination risks. The suit asserts multiple causes of action against each defendant, including strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, negligent failure to warn, and general negligence.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical, developmental, and neurological harm; punitive damages; disgorgement; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the Court. 

19. Garza v. Kettle & Fire, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Michelle Garza 

Defendant: Kettle & Fire, Inc. 

Product Focus: Kettle & Fire Bone Broth Products 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Kettle & Fire deceptively misrepresents the amount and quality of protein in multiple bone broth products. The complaint states that laboratory testing using the Kjeldahl Nitrogen method found that the products contain significantly less total protein than advertised. Further, when evaluated under the FDA-mandated Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) method, the products were shown to contain 0% digestible protein, contradicting the protein claims on the Nutrition Facts Panel and front labels. Plaintiff asserts that Kettle & Fire failed to calculate or disclose the “corrected amount of protein per serving,” as required by FDA regulations, and misled consumers into believing the products delivered the stated protein content. 

The lawsuit alleges that these misrepresentations were material to reasonable consumers seeking high-protein foods for health and dietary reasons. Plaintiff claims she relied on the protein representations when purchasing the products and paid a price premium for what she believed were high-protein broths. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and related claims based on the products being misbranded and unlawfully labeled. 

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

20. O.A. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: O.A., a minor, by and through guardian Olawatosin Adewumi  

Defendants: 
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Danone Nutrition Nederland BV; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Nurture LLC; Plum PBC; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A wide range of baby food products.  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that he consumed numerous baby food products from all defendants during infancy and early childhood and that these foods contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. The product charts spanning  list more than 250 individual products, including Beech-Nut Stage 1 and Stage 2 purées, Gerber cereals and puffs, Hain and Nurture pouches, Plum snacks, Sprout toddler meals, Sun-Maid snacks, and multiple Walmart-brand infant foods. The complaint asserts that chronic exposure to these contaminants was a substantial contributing factor in causing the minor plaintiff’s neurological and developmental injuries, leading to diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).  

The lawsuit incorporates allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint (MDL 3101), asserting that each defendant knew or should have known their baby foods contained harmful heavy metals yet failed to warn caregivers. Plaintiff alleges the products were marketed as safe and appropriate for infants despite documented contamination concerns. Causes of action asserted against all defendants include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent manufacturing, negligent design, and general negligence.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical, developmental, and neurological harm; punitive damages; disgorgement; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

21. Mishikyan v. Cortas Canning & Refrigerating Company SAL  

Plaintiff: Oganes Mishikyan 

Defendant: Cortas Canning & Refrigerating Company SAL and Does 1–20 

Product Focus: Multiple Cortas canned food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Cortas deceptively markets a wide range of its Middle Eastern canned food products as containing “No Preservatives”, despite the products containing citric acid, which the complaint identifies as a synthetic and chemical preservative. The lawsuit asserts that citric acid used by Cortas is not naturally derived from citrus fruit but is manufactured industrially through fermentation using Aspergillus niger and chemical processing methods. According to Plaintiff, citric acid functions as a preservative due to its antimicrobial, antioxidant, pH-regulating, and shelf-life-extending properties. 

Plaintiff claims he purchased Cortas products in California believing they contained no preservatives, relying on the front-label representation. The complaint asserts that Cortas knew or should have known that citric acid is classified by the FDA and USDA as a preservative and that prior regulatory actions have treated citric acid as incompatible with “No Preservatives” claims. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, alleging that consumers paid a price premium for products incorrectly represented as preservative-free.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring removal or correction of the “No Preservatives” claim, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.  

22. Triana v. Naked Whey Inc. d/b/a Naked Nutrition  

Plaintiff: Oliver Triana 

Defendant: Naked Whey Inc. d/b/a Naked Nutrition 

Product Focus: Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer (Naked Mass)  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Naked Nutrition falsely markets its Vegan Mass Gainer as a pure, safe, and high-quality protein supplement despite the product containing dangerously high levels of lead. According to the complaint, independent testing by Consumer Reports in October 2025 found that the product contains 7.7 micrograms of lead per serving, exceeding Consumer Reports’ upper threshold for lead exposure by more than 1,500%. Plaintiff asserts that Naked Nutrition prominently markets the product as “clean,” “nutritious,” “only three ingredients,” “tested for heavy metals,” and “meeting FDA safety reference levels,” while failing to disclose the presence of toxic contaminants. 

The complaint states that lead exposure can impair every major bodily system and is especially harmful to the brain, kidneys, cardiovascular system, and developing nervous system. Despite these risks, Defendant allegedly reassured consumers that its product was safe for frequent, long-term use. Plaintiff claims he purchased the product multiple times in 2023–2025, consumed approximately two servings per day, and relied on Defendant’s representations regarding purity and safety. Causes of action include violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, alleging that consumers paid a premium price for a product that was unsafe and misrepresented.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of heavy metal contamination, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

23. R.G. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, et al.  

Plaintiff: R.G., a minor, by and through her mother, Sophia Alvin  

Defendants: Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; The Campbell’s Company; Danone North America PBC; Danone Nutrition Nederland BV; Gerber Products Company; Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Nurture LLC; Plum PBC; Sprout Foods; Sun-Maid Growers of California; Walmart Inc.  

Product Focus: A broad range of baby food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that she consumed numerous baby food products manufactured by all defendants during infancy and early childhood and that these products contained dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. The complaint includes extensive product lists showing consumption of Beech-Nut purées, Gerber cereals and puffs, Hain and Nurture pouches, Plum and Sprout snacks, Sun-Maid fruit snacks, Walmart-brand infant foods, and multiple infant formulas. Plaintiff asserts that chronic exposure to these contaminants during critical developmental periods was a substantial contributing factor in causing neurological and behavioral injuries ultimately diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 

The lawsuit incorporates allegations from the First Amended Master Long-Form Complaint (MDL 3101), asserting that each defendant knew or should have known that their products contained harmful levels of heavy metals and failed to warn caregivers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants marketed their foods as nutritious, safe, and appropriate for infant consumption despite documented contamination risks. Causes of action asserted include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect), negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent manufacturing, negligent design, and general negligence against each defendant.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical, developmental, and neurological harm; punitive damages; disgorgement; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

24. Damas & Varela v. Health-Ade LLC  

Plaintiffs: Richard Damas and Diane Varela 

Defendant: Health-Ade LLC 

Product Focus: Health-Ade “SunSip” Soda  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Health-Ade falsely and misleadingly markets its SunSip Soda as a “gut-healthy soda” that delivers prebiotic benefits, despite the product containing only 3 grams of agave inulin per serving—an amount Plaintiffs claim is far too low to provide any meaningful digestive or microbiome benefit. According to the complaint, scientific research shows that prebiotic benefits require consumers to ingest at least 12 grams of inulin daily, meaning consumers would need to drink four cans per day for an entire month to reach the threshold associated with gut-health improvements. Plaintiffs further assert that each can contains 5 grams of added sugar, which they allege negates any potential benefit and may instead harm gut health and overall wellness. 

The complaint states that Health-Ade markets SunSip aggressively across its website, social media, and retail partners—such as Amazon and Walmart—using repeated claims including “gut-healthy soda,” “gut-healthy prebiotics,” “gut-healthy goodness,” and “benefits that deliver the flavor you love and good-for-you feel.” Plaintiffs argue that these representations are deceptive because the product does not deliver the promised gut-health benefits and may mislead reasonable consumers seeking functional health beverages. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and New York GBL §§349–350, as well as claims for restitution and injunctive relief. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting Health-Ade from marketing SunSip as a “gut-healthy” soda, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.  

25. Nyman v. Flagstone Foods LLC  

Plaintiff: Tamika Nyman 

Defendant: Flagstone Foods LLC 

Product Focus: Emerald Salt & Pepper Cashews  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Flagstone Foods falsely and misleadingly markets its Emerald Salt & Pepper Cashews as containing “No Artificial Preservatives or Colors,” despite the product containing citric acid, which the complaint identifies as a chemical, non-natural substance that can function as a preservative. Photos in the complaint show the front label claim and the ingredient list, where CITRIC ACID is highlighted. Plaintiff asserts that modern citric acid is produced through industrial fermentation using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined with chemical reagents, making it synthetic rather than natural. 

The complaint describes in detail that citric acid performs multiple preservative-like functions in the cashew seasoning blend, including acidulation, buffering, antioxidation, and antimicrobial activity, all of which help extend shelf life and inhibit spoilage. Plaintiff alleges that these functions contradict the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim and render the product misbranded under New York law. She claims she purchased the product at a price premium between November 2022 and August 2023, believing it contained no chemical or synthetic preservatives. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, asserting that the misleading labeling caused economic injury. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages representing the price premium paid, restitution, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper. 

26. LaBrusciano-Carris v. HP Hood LLC  

Plaintiff: Theo LaBrusciano-Carris 

Defendant: HP Hood LLC (d/b/a Planet Oat) 

Product Focus: Planet Oat Oatmilk products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that HP Hood falsely and misleadingly markets its Planet Oat Oatmilk products as containing 4 micrograms of Vitamin D per serving, despite independent laboratory testing showing the products contained zero Vitamin D. The complaint includes packaging images showing the “Excellent Source of Calcium & Vitamins A & D” claim, and the Nutrition Facts panel representing 4 mcg Vitamin D per serving. A May 2025 ISO/IEC 17025 accredited lab test found no detectable Vitamin D, contradicting the represented nutrient content. 

The complaint asserts that multiple Planet Oat varieties—including Extra Creamy, Vanilla, Chocolate, Unsweetened, and Unsweetened Vanilla—share identical Vitamin D claims and are materially the same in formulation and labeling. Plaintiff alleges that the products are misbranded under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and California’s Sherman Law because they fail to contain the nutrient represented on the label. Plaintiff claims he relied on the Vitamin D representation when purchasing the products in September 2025 and paid a price premium for a fortified product that did not deliver the advertised nutritional benefit. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate Vitamin D labeling and nutrient testing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court.  

27. Wright v. Zammex Nutrition LLC  

Plaintiff: Ashley Wright 

Defendant: Zammex Nutrition LLC 

Product Focus: Zammex Hydrolyzed Bone Broth Protein – Vanilla Flavor  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Zammex Nutrition falsely markets its Hydrolyzed Bone Broth Protein product as containing 10 grams of protein per serving, despite the majority of its protein being collagen-based, which is classified as a low-quality, incomplete protein that does not meet human nutritional needs. The complaint explains that FDA regulations require manufacturers to disclose protein quality using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) when making protein claims, and that collagen typically has a PDCAAS near zero, meaning its amino acid profile does not support human protein synthesis. 

According to the complaint, Zammex failed to calculate or disclose the required “corrected amount of protein” and corresponding % Daily Value, rendering its “10g protein” claim unlawful and misleading under federal and California law. Plaintiff asserts that the misrepresentation caused her—and similarly situated consumers—to pay a premium price for a supplement that does not provide 10 grams of nutritionally available protein, and that the product is therefore misbranded. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), along with breach of warranty, fraudulent business practices, and unjust enrichment.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein labeling and PDCAAS disclosure, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all additional relief deemed proper by the Court.  

28. Bruno v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.  

Plaintiff: Perry Bruno 

Defendant: Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. 

Product Focus: Snapple beverages  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Keurig Dr Pepper falsely and misleadingly markets at least seventeen Snapple beverages as “All Natural,” even though the products contain synthetic citric acid, a chemically manufactured ingredient. According to the complaint, the citric acid used in Snapple products is produced through industrial fermentation using genetically engineered strains of Aspergillus niger and refined using chemical solvents such as n-octyl alcohol and petroleum-based hydrocarbons. Plaintiff asserts that this manufacturing process yields a synthetic ingredient that cannot reasonably be described as “natural,” rendering the “All Natural” label misleading. 

The complaint further alleges that Keurig Dr Pepper knew its products contained synthetic citric acid and nonetheless promoted them as all natural to increase sales and charge a price premium. Plaintiff claims he purchased Snapple Aged White Cheddar (as shown in product images) in Los Angeles in May 2025 believing the beverage contained only natural ingredients. He asserts that he and other class members would not have purchased the beverages, or would have paid less for them, had they known they contained artificial ingredients. Causes of action include violations of the California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with claims for restitution, damages, and injunctive relief based on the alleged misbranding. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, actual and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring removal of false “All Natural” representations, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper.  

29. Nasar v. Sazerac Company Inc.  

Plaintiff: Hamzah Nasar 

Defendant: Sazerac Company Inc. 

Product Focus: Stirrings Simple Margarita Cocktail Mix  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Sazerac Company deceptively markets its Stirrings Simple Margarita cocktail mix as containing “No Preservatives,” despite the product containing citric acid, identified in the complaint as a chemical, synthetic, and non-natural ingredient that functions as a preservative. The bottle label displays the “No Preservatives” claim, while the ingredient list includes CITRIC ACID (for flavor). Plaintiff asserts that citric acid, though historically sourced from citrus fruits, is now manufactured industrially using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and extensive chemical processing steps, making it incompatible with a “No Preservatives” representation. 

According to the complaint, citric acid performs multiple preservative-like functions in the product, including preventing spoilage, slowing microbial growth, improving flavor stability, extending shelf life, and maintaining color and aroma. Plaintiff claims that these functions directly contradict Sazerac’s labeling and that the product is therefore misbranded. He alleges he relied on the “No Preservatives” claim when purchasing the product between November 2022 and August 2025, paying a premium price because he believed the mix was free from chemical additives. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging material deception and economic injury. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages based on the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court. 

30. Levin v. Manischewitz Food Products Corp.  

Plaintiff: Harry Levin 

Defendant: Manischewitz Food Products Corp. and The Manischewitz® Company 

Product Focus: Manischewitz “All Beef Hot Dogs”  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Manischewitz falsely and deceptively markets its “All Beef Hot Dogs” as “ALL BEEF”, despite the product containing non-beef ingredients, including water, potassium lactate, sodium diacetate, and added flavors. The complaint includes product photos showing the prominent “ALL BEEF HOT DOGS” label, which Plaintiff claims misleads consumers into believing the product is made exclusively from beef. According to the complaint, federal regulations prohibit labeling a food as “all beef” if it contains any non-beef ingredients, even if common in processed meats. 

Plaintiff claims he purchased the hot dogs believing they were made entirely from beef and relied on the labeling to pay a price premium. The complaint asserts that Manischewitz intentionally emphasized “ALL BEEF” on the packaging to deceive consumers and gain a competitive market advantage. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as claims based on misleading, false, and fraudulent business practices. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling, compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.  

31. Bautista v. OP2 Labs LLC d/b/a Frog Fuel  

Plaintiff: Inna Bautista 

Defendant: OP2 Labs LLC d/b/a Frog Fuel 

Product Focus: Frog Fuel Daily Recovery Protein (Ready-to-Drink)  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Frog Fuel deceptively markets its Daily Recovery Protein product as containing 15 grams of complete protein, when in reality the product contains significantly less usable protein because it is made primarily of collagen, which is not a complete protein under FDA regulations. The complaint states that amino acids cannot be counted as protein under 21 C.F.R. §101.36(b)(2)(i), yet Defendant includes amino acids in the 15-gram protein calculation. Third-party testing allegedly confirms that the product contains only 13.4 grams of protein, rendering the label misbranded. 

Plaintiff further asserts that collagen-based protein lacks essential amino acids (EAAs) necessary to qualify as a complete protein and therefore cannot provide the same benefits as complete protein sources such as meat, fish, eggs, or milk. Because the protein content is overstated, Plaintiff claims the product does not deliver the advertised muscle-building or recovery benefits. The lawsuit highlights extensive advertising on Defendant’s website, Amazon, Walmart, and retail packaging emphasizing “rapid repair” of muscles and connective tissues, allegedly misleading consumers into expecting benefits the product cannot provide. Causes of action include violations of the California CLRA, False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein labeling and marketing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court finds appropriate.  

32. Pardo & Pyrane v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.  

Plaintiffs: Jessica Pardo and Sthorn Pyrane 

Defendant: Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. 

Product Focus: Sara Lee Artesano Breads  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Bimbo Bakeries USA deceptively markets several Sara Lee Artesano bread products as “Always Baked Without Artificial Colors, Flavors & Preservatives,” despite the breads containing citric acid, which the complaint identifies as a synthetic, chemically processed artificial preservative. Images throughout the complaint show the red circular front-label badge displaying the “Always Baked Without…” claim, while the ingredient lists on product packaging and retailer websites clearly list citric acid. Plaintiffs assert that citric acid is industrially manufactured using Aspergillus niger fermentation and functions as an antimicrobial, antioxidant, and pH-regulating preservative—rendering the front-label representation false. 

Plaintiffs claim they purchased the Artesano breads repeatedly in 2025 from New York retailers after relying on the “Always Baked Without…” promise, believing the products contained no artificial preservatives. They assert Bimbo profited by exploiting consumer demand for preservative-free foods while concealing the use of citric acid. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, alleging that consumers paid a price premium for mislabeled bread and would not have purchased it had they known citric acid was included.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “Always Baked Without…” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

33. McLendon v. Panera Bread Company  

Plaintiff: Kathyan McLendon 

Defendant: Panera Bread Company 

Product Focus: Panera Fuji Apple Vinaigrette and related apple-flavored vinaigrettes/marinades  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Panera Bread falsely and misleadingly markets its Fuji Apple flavored vinaigrette and marinade products as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite the ingredient list revealing the presence of citric acid, which the complaint identifies as a chemical, non-natural ingredient that serves preservative functions. The product photos included in the complaint show the prominent “No Artificial” claim on the front label, while citric acid is clearly listed among ingredients on the back label. 

The complaint explains that modern citric acid is not derived from citrus fruit but is produced using Aspergillus niger (black mold) and chemical processing steps. It further alleges that citric acid acts as a preservative by acidifying the product, preventing microbial spoilage, stabilizing pH, acting as an antioxidant, extending shelf life, enhancing emulsion stability, and preventing browning. Because the vinaigrette is an “acidified food” susceptible to spoilage, the complaint argues that citric acid’s functions directly contradict Panera’s “No Artificial Preservatives” representation. 

Plaintiff claims she purchased the product multiple times between November 2022 and August 2025 in New York, relying on the labeling and paying a price premium. Causes of action include violations of N.Y. General Business Law §§ 349–350, alleging materially misleading labeling, as well as claims for economic injury based on overpayment for a misrepresented product. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, actual damages representing the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.  

34. Linton et al. v. ByHeart, Inc.  

Plaintiffs: Laney Linton, Chloe Oliver, Rosemary Rockey, and Thomas Andracchi II 

Defendant: ByHeart, Inc. 

Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart marketed and sold its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula as safe, pure, and suitable for babies from birth to 12 months while failing to disclose that the formula was contaminated, or at risk of contamination, with Clostridium botulinum—a dangerous toxin-producing bacterium that can cause life-threatening infant botulism. According to the complaint, despite knowing that laboratory testing detected the presence of C. botulinum in a can of its formula, ByHeart continued to advertise the product as high-quality, thoroughly tested, and compliant with FDA requirements. The label and website representations emphasized safety, purity, and “peace of mind,” which Plaintiffs allege were false, deceptive, and contradicted ByHeart’s knowledge of contamination risks. 

On November 11, 2025, the FDA and CDC announced multiple confirmed cases of infant botulism linked to ByHeart’s formula, leading to a nationwide recall. Plaintiffs allege the recall was inadequate and poorly structured, requiring consumers to submit receipts or return original packaging, and limiting refunds for purchases made through third-party retailers. Plaintiffs claim they suffered financial losses after discarding remaining formula, as well as emotional distress, fear, and anxiety upon learning the product may have exposed their infants to a severe bacterial hazard. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349–350, California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, Pennsylvania UTPCPL, North Carolina UDTPA, as well as breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring complete and transparent safety disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate.  

35. Pilato & Martinez v. ByHeart, Inc.  

Plaintiffs: Mariah Pilato and Ashley Martinez 

Defendant: ByHeart, Inc. 

Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart deceptively marketed, labeled, and sold its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula as safe, high-quality, and free from harmful contaminants while failing to disclose that the product contained, or was at significant risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum. The complaint explains that infant botulism is a potentially fatal illness caused when C. botulinum spores are ingested, producing toxins inside the infant’s intestines. On November 8, 2025, the California Department of Public Health confirmed the presence of C. botulinum in a ByHeart formula can, and on November 11, 2025, the FDA and CDC announced confirmed cases of infant botulism linked to ByHeart products. 

Plaintiffs assert that ByHeart’s recall was insufficient, confusing, and designed to minimize the defendant’s liability. The recall allegedly required receipts or original packaging—documents many consumers lacked—resulting in out-of-pocket losses when parents discarded remaining formula. Plaintiffs further allege that ByHeart’s packaging contained no disclosure of the contamination risk and that ByHeart continued to market the product as safe, wholesome, and beneficial for infants even after learning test results indicating contamination. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349–350, Florida’s FDUTPA, California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, negligence, breach of warranties, and unjust enrichment.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring complete safety disclosures and an adequate recall process, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

36. Schneider v. ByHeart, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Max Schneider 

Defendant: ByHeart, Inc. 

Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that ByHeart marketed and sold its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula as safe, pure, and superior to competitors while failing to disclose that the product was contaminated, or at significant risk of contamination, with Clostridium botulinum—a bacteria capable of causing infant botulism, a severe and potentially fatal illness. According to the complaint, ByHeart promoted its formula as “safe, clean, and backed by science,” emphasizing rigorous quality testing and U.S.-based manufacturing, while representing itself as a trustworthy domestic formula producer. 

The complaint describes how, after the FDA linked 15 cases of infant botulism to consumption of ByHeart products and issued findings of manufacturing violations, ByHeart initiated a nationwide recall in November 2025. Plaintiff asserts that ByHeart’s recall procedures were inadequate and burdensome, requiring consumers to discard products without reimbursement or to navigate restrictive refund processes. Plaintiff claims he relied on ByHeart’s safety assurances when purchasing the formula for his infant, paid a premium price, and was deprived of the benefit of his bargain when the formula he purchased became unsafe and unusable. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §349, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment, alleging that ByHeart misrepresented product safety and failed to prevent contamination. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; disgorgement of profits; injunctive relief requiring accurate safety disclosures; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court.  

37. Dotson v. Post Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Bob Evans Farms, LLC  

Plaintiff: Michael Dotson 

Defendant: Post Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Bob Evans Farms, LLC 

Product Focus: Bob Evans Macaroni & Cheese  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Bob Evans Farms falsely and misleadingly markets its macaroni and cheese products as containing “no artificial preservatives,” despite the products containing sodium phosphate and lactic acid, which the complaint identifies as synthetic preservatives. The label shown in the complaint prominently features the “no artificial preservatives” claim. The ingredient list includes sodium phosphate, a highly water-soluble inorganic salt added to food to prevent microbial growth, lipid oxidation, and enzymatic browning—functions consistent with a preservative. The complaint cites FDA definitions explaining that preservatives include chemical substances added to foods to prevent or retard deterioration. 

Plaintiff further alleges that the products contain manufactured lactic acid, which is produced using genetically engineered bacteria and chemical synthesis rather than natural fermentation. According to the complaint, synthetic lactic acid acts as a preservative by inhibiting bacteria, lowering pH, and extending shelf life. Plaintiff claims he relied on the “no artificial preservatives” statement when purchasing the product and paid a price premium for a product he believed contained only natural ingredients. Causes of action include violations of the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, and California Business & Professions Code §17200, alleging that the labeling was false, misleading, and unlawful.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, corrective advertising, restitution, actual and statutory damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.  

38. Salisbury et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation  

Plaintiffs: Nelson Salisbury, Phillip Asphy, Karl Steinberg, Tesha Gamino, LeRoy Davis, Stuart Bergman, Jordan Leventhal, Kathryn Trainor, Cynthia Reese, Chad Forester, Michael Mathenge, Patricia Bailey, Dalit Cohen (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated) 

Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation 

Product Focus: Kirkland Signature Tequila Products  

Summary: 
Plaintiffs allege that Costco falsely and deceptively markets its entire line of Kirkland Signature Tequila as “100% de Agave”, despite scientific testing showing the presence of non-agave ethanol. The complaint includes product images showing the “100% de Agave” labeling and states that Costco repeatedly represents its tequila as made solely from Blue Weber agave, with no additional sugar sources used in fermentation. Plaintiffs assert that they purchased various Kirkland tequila products between 2022 and 2025, relying on these representations and paying premium prices because “100% de Agave” tequila commands substantially higher value. 

Independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiffs used NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) and isotope carbon analysis, widely accepted methods for detecting adulteration in tequila. The testing indicated that sampled bottles of Kirkland Blanco and Reposado contained ethanol signatures characteristic of C4 plants—such as cane or corn—rather than C3 plants like agave. Plaintiffs claim these findings directly contradict Costco’s labeling and show the tequila is adulterated, misbranded, and does not meet U.S. or Mexican tequila standards (NOM-006). 

The lawsuit alleges Costco knowingly misrepresented the tequila’s purity, distorted the premium tequila market, and engaged in a scheme with foreign producers to obtain false certification for adulterated tequila. Causes of action include RICO violations, Washington Consumer Protection Act violations, and multiple state-law consumer protection claims across California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. Plaintiffs claim that had they known the tequila contained non-agave ethanol, they would not have purchased it or would have paid less. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and disclosure of ingredients, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.  

39. Mishikyan v. Cortas Canning & Refrigerating Company SAL  

Plaintiff: Oganes Mishikyan 

Defendant: Cortas Canning & Refrigerating Company SAL and Does 1–20 

Product Focus: A wide range of Cortas canned food products  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Cortas falsely and deceptively markets numerous canned food products as containing “No Preservatives,” despite the ingredient lists revealing citric acid, which the complaint identifies as a synthetic, chemically manufactured preservative. Product images throughout the complaint show the green “No Preservatives” badge printed directly on the cans, while citric acid appears in the ingredient panels. Plaintiff asserts that citric acid, though originally derived from citrus fruit, is now produced using Aspergillus niger fermentation and chemical processing. 

The complaint further alleges that citric acid performs clear preservative functions in Cortas products, including preventing deterioration, slowing microbial growth, extending shelf life, stabilizing acidity, preventing discoloration, and functioning as an antioxidant. Plaintiff claims reasonable consumers would not expect chemically processed citric acid in a product advertised as preservative-free. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, asserting that Cortas profited by misleading consumers and selling the products at a price premium.  

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring removal or correction of the “No Preservatives” labeling, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.  

40. Rousch v. New World Herbal Wellness LLC d/b/a Doctor Recommended  

Plaintiff: Tawni Rousch 

Defendant: New World Herbal Wellness LLC d/b/a Doctor Recommended 

Product Focus: Doctor Recommended Berberine Plus Dietary Supplement  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Recommended falsely and misleadingly advertises its Berberine Plus supplement as containing 1200 mg of Berberine HCl per serving, when independent laboratory testing showed the product contains significantly less berberine than advertised. Product packaging shown in the complaint displays the “1200 MG” content claim and “100% Pure Max Potency” representations, which Plaintiff relied upon when purchasing the supplement on Amazon for $29.90. 

According to the complaint, testing commissioned by Plaintiff’s counsel of 12 separately purchased bottles revealed that the actual berberine content was far below 1200 mg per 2-capsule serving, with results showing only 1058 mg on average. Plaintiff alleges Defendant either failed to conduct adequate ingredient verification testing or knowingly misrepresented the berberine content. Plaintiff claims she would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had she known the supplement did not contain the represented amount of berberine. Causes of action include breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling of berberine content, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief deemed proper by the Court.  

41. Gollogly v. Mondelēz International, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Tim Gollogly 

Defendant: Mondelēz International, Inc. 

Product Focus: Mondelēz chocolate products (including Oreo, Toblerone, Côte D’Or) advertised with the “Cocoa Life” logo and claims of “100% sustainably sourced cocoa” 

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Mondelēz falsely and deceptively markets numerous chocolate products as made with “100% sustainably sourced cocoa” through its widely promoted Cocoa Life program. Product photos in the complaint show the Cocoa Life logo displayed on Oreo, Toblerone, and Côte D’Or packaging. Mondelēz claims the Cocoa Life program improves cocoa farmers’ livelihoods, protects people and the planet, and ensures sustainable, ethical cocoa sourcing. 

According to the complaint, these representations are materially false. Plaintiff asserts that the cocoa used in Mondelēz products is linked to child labor, hazardous labor practices, worker exploitation, deforestation, and environmentally destructive farming methods. Citing investigative reports and international labor findings, the complaint alleges that Mondelēz sources cocoa from farms in West Africa—particularly Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire—where children as young as 10 reportedly perform hazardous tasks with machetes and are trafficked or coerced into labor. The complaint also alleges that Mondelēz’s cocoa supply chain contributes to widespread deforestation, undermining the company’s environmental claims. 

Plaintiff claims he purchased Oreo and Toblerone products between June 2023 and January 2024 in reliance on Mondelēz’s sustainability statements and would not have bought them, or paid as much, had he known of the alleged unethical and unsustainable practices. Causes of action include violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express warranty, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, alleging that the “100% sustainably sourced” claims induced consumers to pay a price premium for falsely advertised products. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive sustainability claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief deemed appropriate by the Court.  

42. Dudley v. Hawaii’s Best Hawaiian Haupia, LLC  

Plaintiff: Trish Dudley 

Defendant: Hawaii’s Best Hawaiian Haupia, LLC and Does 1–20 

Product Focus: Hawaiian Haupia Mix  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that Hawaii’s Best Hawaiian Haupia deceptively packages its Haupia Mix in opaque bags containing substantial non-functional slack-fill, misleading consumers about the true quantity of product inside. The complaint includes images showing the opaque black packaging, which prevents consumers from seeing the contents before purchase. Plaintiff claims that the amount of mix inside the package occupies only a fraction of the bag’s total volume, causing consumers to believe they are purchasing significantly more Haupia Mix than they actually receive. 

The complaint asserts that the slack-fill is nonfunctional, not caused by product settling, and not necessary for protection, handling, or manufacturing. According to Plaintiff, Defendant could easily reduce package size or increase product quantity but instead uses oversized, opaque packaging to create a misleading impression of greater value. Plaintiff alleges this practice violates California’s Slack-Fill Statute, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). She claims she relied on the size of the packaging when purchasing the product and suffered economic injury when the product was revealed to be far smaller than expected. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring truthful and non-misleading packaging, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper.  

43. Valenzuela v. ByHeart, Inc.  

Plaintiff: Monica Valenzuela 

Defendant: ByHeart, Inc. 

Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula  

Summary: 
Plaintiff alleges that ByHeart deceptively labeled, marketed, and sold its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula without disclosing that the product was contaminated, or at significant risk of contamination, with Clostridium botulinum. The complaint states that ByHeart omitted any warning on the formula’s packaging, misleading consumers into believing the product was safe when it allegedly posed life-threatening health risks to infants. Product photos in the complaint show no disclosure of contamination risk. Plaintiff asserts that had she known the formula was contaminated or potentially contaminated, she would not have purchased it at all. 

The lawsuit further alleges that ByHeart’s recall, announced in early November 2025 after FDA-identified cases of infant botulism linked to the product, was inadequate and structured to minimize compensation. The complaint claims the recall required consumers to return products to specific locations, provide receipts that many no longer had, and left consumers who discarded contaminated formula without refunds. Plaintiff alleges that ByHeart’s misrepresentations and omissions caused class members to lose the benefit of their bargain, pay a price premium, and be exposed to significant health risks. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, negligence, and unjust enrichment. 

Prayer for Relief: 
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, actual and statutory damages, treble damages where available, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief requiring proper safety disclosures and recall procedures.  

Risk Reduction Tips for Food & Beverage Brands 

• Substantiate All Nutrient Claims – Verify protein amounts, vitamin levels, and other nutrient representations with accredited third-party lab testing to ensure they match what appears on the Nutrition Facts Panel. 

• Avoid Absolute Statements Without Proof – Claims like “No Preservatives,” “All Natural,” “Nothing Artificial,” or “100% Pure” should only be used when the entire formula and all ingredient functions fully support those statements. 

• Confirm Ingredient Functionality – Identify whether ingredients such as citric acid, lactic acid, maltodextrin, or other additives perform preservative, sweetening, or stabilizing functions and ensure labeling accurately reflects those roles. 

• Ensure Claim Compliance for Infant and Toddler Products – Nutrient content claims on foods intended for children under age two must comply with FDA restrictions; avoid unpermitted health or nutrient claims on baby foods and formulas. 

• Maintain Accurate Protein Quality Disclosures – When using collagen-based or incomplete proteins, calculate PDCAAS and disclose corrected protein amounts as required by FDA regulations. 

• Strengthen Contamination Controls – Implement strict testing for pathogens and heavy metals, particularly for high-risk categories like infant formula, protein powders, and supplements. 

• Be Prepared With a Consumer-Friendly Recall Plan – Ensure recall procedures are fast, accessible, and provide refunds without imposing undue burdens such as receipt or packaging requirements.