February 2026 Class Action Lawsuits in Food & Beverage, Supplements, and Consumer Products
Food labeling litigation and false advertising lawsuits continued to target food, beverage, dietary supplement, and consumer product companies in February 2026. Plaintiffs increasingly challenged ingredient disclosures, “natural” claims, health benefit marketing, and food safety issues. This monthly update helps regulatory, legal, QA, and marketing teams understand emerging class action risks for CPG brands and identify litigation trends affecting the industry.
At-a-Glance Stats
Approximate class actions tracked: ~45 food and consumer product cases
Top jurisdictions
- California federal courts
- California state courts
- New York state courts
- Federal courts in New York
- Southern District of Florida
Main litigation themes
- “Natural,” “Nothing Artificial,” and clean label claims
- Ingredient quantity and nutrient representation disputes
- Health benefit claims for supplements and functional beverages
- Food safety and contamination litigation
- Whole grain and ingredient composition claims
- Origin and sourcing representations
- Packaging slack-fill allegations
- Environmental and recyclability claims
Product categories targeted
- Snacks, crackers, and baked goods
- Dietary supplements and nutraceuticals
- Candy and confectionery products
- Functional beverages and energy drinks
- Plant-based foods
- Sweeteners and sugar alternatives
- Protein powders and nutrition products
- Poultry and prepared foods
Class Action Litigation Trends – February 2026
Plaintiffs filed approximately 45 food and beverage class actions in February 2026, focusing heavily on labeling claims, contamination risks, and functional health marketing. Several patterns emerged across the filings.
Top Litigation Themes
| Litigation Theme | Approx. Cases |
|---|---|
| “Natural” / No Artificial Claims | 14 |
| Ingredient Quantity / Nutrition Claims | 7 |
| Health & Functional Benefit Claims | 6 |
| Contamination / Food Safety | 6 |
| Whole Grain / Ingredient Composition | 5 |
| Origin & Geographic Claims | 2 |
| Sustainability / Environmental Claims | 1 |
| Packaging (Slack-Fill) | 1 |
Most Targeted Product Categories
| Product Category | Approx. Cases |
|---|---|
| Snacks / Crackers / Baked Goods | 8 |
| Supplements & Nutraceuticals | 7 |
| Functional Beverages | 5 |
| Candy / Confectionery | 4 |
| Sweeteners / Sugar Alternatives | 3 |
| Protein Products | 3 |
| Plant-Based Foods | 2 |
| Poultry / Prepared Foods | 1 |
| Baby Food | 1 |
Top Jurisdictions for Food Class Actions
| Jurisdiction | Approx. Cases |
|---|---|
| California Federal Courts | 14 |
| California State Courts | 8 |
| New York State Courts | 10 |
| New York Federal Courts | 6 |
| Florida Federal Courts | 2 |
| Other Jurisdictions | 5 |
Top Companies Named in February 2026 Class Actions
| Company | Number of Cases | Example Allegations |
|---|---|---|
| Target Corporation | 2 | Ingredient quantity and preservative-free labeling |
| Orgain, LLC | 2 | Health and artificial ingredient claims |
| Superfoods, Inc. (Live It Up) | 2 | Salmonella contamination recall litigation |
| Reed’s Inc. | 2 | “Natural” and artificial ingredient claims |
| General Mills | 2 | Flavor labeling and contamination allegations |
| Major CPG manufacturers (UPF litigation) | 2 | Ultra-processed food health risk claims |
These cases show that both large multinational CPG companies and emerging brands continue to face scrutiny over labeling claims and product safety representations.
Monthly Litigation Snapshot
February Case Tracker
1. George v. Kellanova Inc.
Plaintiff: Elaine George
Defendant: Kellanova Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Plant-based bacon strips
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its MorningStar Farms “Bacon Strips” as “plant-based,” leading consumers to believe the product contains no animal-derived ingredients. The complaint asserts that the product contains egg whites, an animal byproduct disclosed only in the ingredient list, contradicting the front-label representation. Plaintiff contends that reasonable consumers interpret “plant-based” as entirely free from animal ingredients and that the labeling is therefore misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff relied on the representation, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased the product otherwise. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
2. Carrasco v. General Mills Sales Inc.
Plaintiff: Shannon Carrasco
Defendant: General Mills Sales Inc.
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Queens County)
Product Focus: Apple-filled bars
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its bars as “Apple” and “Naturally Flavored,” implying that the apple taste derives exclusively from natural sources. The complaint asserts that the product contains DL-malic acid, a synthetic flavoring ingredient used to enhance taste. Plaintiff contends that the labeling is misleading because the product is not disclosed as artificially flavored. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages for the alleged price premium, attorneys’ fees, and other relief deemed appropriate, while disclaiming punitive and statutory damages.
3. Flexer v. Smartfoods, Inc. & PepsiCo, Inc.
Plaintiff: Alyssa Flexer
Defendants: Smartfoods, Inc.; PepsiCo, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Popcorn products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely market popcorn products as containing “No Artificial Colors or Flavors” and “No Artificial Preservatives.” The complaint asserts that the products contain maltodextrin, a synthetic ingredient that allegedly functions as a flavoring agent and preservative. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the “natural” positioning of the products and misleads consumers. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
4. Adkins v. Superfoods, Inc. (Live It Up)
Plaintiff: Charlyn Adkins
Defendant: Superfoods, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Super greens supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deceptively marketed its supplements as safe and high-quality while failing to disclose Salmonella contamination risks. The complaint asserts that the products were recalled after reports of illness and hospitalization. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s safety and quality representations were misleading in light of the contamination. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff suffered illness and economic harm after relying on the representations. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory, punitive, and treble damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
5. Varela v. Superfoods, Inc. (Live It Up)
Plaintiff: Diane Varela
Defendant: Superfoods, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Super greens supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose that its products were contaminated with, or at risk of containing, Salmonella. The complaint asserts that the products were marketed as safe and health-focused despite the contamination risk. Plaintiff contends that this omission was material to consumers’ purchasing decisions. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the safety representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory, compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
6. Berkowitz v. Cooper Street Cookies, LLC
Plaintiff: Lynette Gonzalez Berkowitz
Defendant: Cooper Street Cookies, LLC
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (San Bernardino County)
Product Focus: Cookies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its cookies as containing “Nothing Artificial” and “No Artificial Ingredients.” The complaint asserts that the products contain synthetic additives such as sodium acid pyrophosphate and monocalcium phosphate. Plaintiff contends that these ingredients contradict the labeling and mislead consumers seeking natural products. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
7. Anderson v. General Mills Canada Corporation
Plaintiff: Troy Anderson
Defendant: General Mills Canada Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Product Focus: Pizza Pops
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold food products contaminated with E. coli, rendering them unsafe for consumption. The complaint asserts that the products were recalled following reports of infections and hospitalizations. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to implement adequate safety controls and warn consumers. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff suffered illness after consuming the product. Plaintiff seeks class certification, general and special damages, restitution and disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, recovery of healthcare costs, punitive damages, interest, and other appropriate relief.
8. Davin v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc.
Plaintiff: Bradley Davin
Defendant: Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida)
Product Focus: K-Cup pods
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its K-Cup pods as “recyclable,” misleading consumers about their environmental impact. The complaint asserts that most recycling programs do not accept the pods due to their design and materials. Plaintiff contends that the recyclability claim is deceptive and inconsistent with FTC guidance. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
9. Banks v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Deija Banks
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Apple cider vinegar gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its gummies as containing a specific level of acetic acid associated with apple cider vinegar. The complaint asserts that testing shows significantly lower levels than advertised, rendering the product misbranded. Plaintiff contends that the labeling misleads consumers about the product’s composition and health benefits. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
10. DeHerrera v. Reed’s Inc.
Plaintiff: Anne-Marie DeHerrera
Defendant: Reed’s Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Ginger ale
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its beverages as containing “Nothing Artificial” and “No Artificial Preservatives.” The complaint asserts that the products contain erythritol and citric acid, which are allegedly synthetic ingredients. Plaintiff contends that these ingredients contradict the labeling and mislead consumers seeking natural products. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
11. Harbour v. Acme Markets Inc.
Plaintiff: Britta Harbour
Defendant: Acme Markets Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: Wheat crackers
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its crackers as “Stone Ground Wheat,” leading consumers to believe the product is made primarily from whole grain flour. The complaint asserts that the product predominantly contains refined flour, with minimal whole grain content. Plaintiff contends that the labeling and imagery mislead consumers seeking healthier whole grain options. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages for the alleged price premium, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief, while disclaiming statutory and punitive damages.
12. Herrera v. Reed’s Inc.
Plaintiff: Daniel Herrera
Defendant: Reed’s Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. California)
Product Focus: Ginger ale beverages
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its beverages as “All Natural” and containing “Nothing Artificial.” The complaint asserts that the products contain citric acid manufactured through industrial processes, which is characterized as synthetic. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the natural labeling claims. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
13. Ballard v. Orgain, LLC
Plaintiffs: Dwayne Ballard; Tammy Smirin
Defendant: Orgain, LLC
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Protein powders and bars
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant markets its products as “clean” and healthy while including erythritol. The complaint asserts that erythritol is linked to health risks, contradicting the products’ wellness positioning. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to disclose these risks while promoting the products as beneficial. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective disclosures, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
14. Hughes v. Mount Franklin Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Ebony Hughes
Defendant: Mount Franklin Foods, LLC
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Solano County)
Product Focus: Candy products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets candy as being associated with Sweden through packaging claims. The complaint asserts that the products are actually manufactured in Mexico. Plaintiff contends that the origin representation misleads consumers seeking authentic imported goods. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
15. Reiter v. Health-Ade LLC
Plaintiff: Eliyahu Reiter
Defendant: Health-Ade LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Prebiotic soda
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its beverages as providing gut health benefits. The complaint asserts that the amount of prebiotic fiber is insufficient to deliver the claimed benefits. Plaintiff contends that the health claims are misleading and unsupported. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory and actual damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
16. Abualya v. Wakefern Food Corp.
Plaintiff: Franca Abualya
Defendant: Wakefern Food Corp.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County
Product Focus: Wheat crackers
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets crackers as made from “Stoned Wheat,” implying whole grain content. The complaint asserts that the product primarily contains refined flour. Plaintiff contends that this misleads consumers seeking whole grain products. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief, while disclaiming punitive and statutory damages.
17. Nelson v. Good Brands, LLC
Plaintiff: Maria Nelson
Defendant: Good Brands, LLC
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Riverside County)
Product Focus: Berberine supplement
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its supplement as containing 1,000 mg of berberine per serving. The complaint asserts that testing shows significantly lower amounts. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents potency and violates labeling regulations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
18. Nelson & Garza v. WellNX Life Sciences
Plaintiffs: Maria Nelson; Michelle Garza
Defendants: WellNX entities
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. California)
Product Focus: Weight-loss products
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants falsely market products with exaggerated weight-loss claims and drug-like effects. The complaint asserts that the products are unapproved drugs and ineffective. Plaintiffs contend that the marketing misleads consumers and omits safety risks. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
19. Stadler v. Petmate
Plaintiff: Marie Stadler
Defendant: Petmate
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Dog treats
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets products as containing “100% Natural Ingredients.” The complaint asserts that the products contain citric acid, characterized as a synthetic preservative. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the labeling. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
20. Chhin v. Ferrara Candy Company
Plaintiff: Phanny Chhin
Defendant: Ferrara Candy Company
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Candy products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose arsenic contamination in its products. The complaint asserts that arsenic is a harmful toxin and carcinogen. Plaintiff contends that the omission misled consumers about product safety. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the absence of disclosure and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
21. McNatt v. Jocko Fuel, LLC
Plaintiff: Sean McNatt
Defendant: Jocko Fuel, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. California)
Product Focus: Protein powder
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its product as “clean” while failing to disclose lead content. The complaint asserts that the lead levels exceed regulatory safety thresholds. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the product’s purity claims. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
22. Thackrah v. Yerbae’, LLC
Plaintiff: Shawn Thackrah
Defendant: Yerbae’, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Energy drinks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its drinks as “Naturally Sweetened.” The complaint asserts that the products contain highly processed stevia extract. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts consumer expectations of natural ingredients. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claim and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
23. Vickers v. Basic Sportswear Corp.
Plaintiff: Lachae Vickers
Defendant: Basic Sportswear Corp.
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Suffolk County)
Product Focus: Melatonin gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresents product dosage by suggesting each gummy contains 10 mg of melatonin. The complaint asserts that the serving size is two gummies, meaning each contains only half the advertised amount. Plaintiff contends that this misleads consumers about potency and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
24. Albrigo v. Best Naturals
Plaintiff: Laura Willis Albrigo
Defendant: Best Naturals
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (San Diego County)
Product Focus: Berberine supplement
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its supplement as containing 500 mg of berberine per capsule. The complaint asserts that testing shows significantly lower levels. Plaintiff contends that the product is misbranded and misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
25. Lawton v. Major Food Companies
Plaintiff: Tamika Lawton
Defendants: Multiple companies
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. Mississippi)
Product Focus: Ultra-processed foods
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engineered addictive ultra-processed foods and failed to disclose health risks. The complaint asserts that the products contributed to serious health conditions, including Type 2 diabetes. Plaintiff contends that the marketing targeted children and misled consumers. The lawsuit further alleges significant personal injury and economic harm. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, medical expenses, and other appropriate relief.
26. Chakravarthy v. Pyure Brands, LLC
Plaintiff: Gopal Chakravarthy
Defendant: Pyure Brands, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Sweetener
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its product as monk fruit sweetener free from artificial sweeteners. The complaint asserts that erythritol is the primary ingredient. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents the product’s composition. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
27. Rabinowitz v. Spring & Mulberry, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jana Rabinowitz
Defendant: Spring & Mulberry, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Chocolate
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose Salmonella contamination risk in its products. The complaint asserts that the products were recalled due to contamination. Plaintiff contends that the omission misled consumers about safety. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
28. Soumekh v. Navitas Organics
Plaintiff: Jennifer Soumekh
Defendant: Navitas Organics
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Chia seeds
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose Salmonella contamination risk. The complaint asserts that the product was recalled due to contamination. Plaintiff contends that consumers were misled about safety. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
29. Vickers v. Halfday Tonics Inc.
Plaintiff: Lachae Vickers
Defendant: Halfday Tonics Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Prebiotic iced tea
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets beverages as providing gut health benefits. The complaint asserts that the fiber content is insufficient to deliver such benefits. Plaintiff contends that the claims are misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
30. Taylor v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiff: Lisa Taylor
Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (W.D. Washington)
Product Focus: Chicken products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold chicken products with elevated Salmonella contamination risks. The complaint asserts that the facility repeatedly failed safety standards. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to disclose these risks. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on safety representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
31. Taylor v. Orgain LLC
Plaintiff: Donna Taylor
Defendant: Orgain LLC
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Orange County)
Product Focus: Nutritional shakes
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets products as free of artificial preservatives. The complaint asserts that the product contains disodium phosphate, a synthetic ingredient. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the labeling. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
32. Gordinier v. Bright People Foods, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Gerald Gordinier; Thomas Simmons
Defendant: Bright People Foods, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Soup and ramen cups
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant misrepresents protein content on product labels. The complaint asserts that the usable protein is less than advertised due to protein quality. Plaintiffs contend that failure to disclose corrected protein values is misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, restitution, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
33. Koentjoro v. Ultima Health Products, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jason Koentjoro
Defendant: Ultima Health Products, Inc.
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Electrolyte drink mix
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its product as containing no artificial sweeteners. The complaint asserts that it contains stevia extract, a highly processed sweetener. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts consumer expectations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claim and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and other appropriate relief.
34. Winston v. La Terra Fina USA LLC
Plaintiff: Keanna Winston
Defendant: La Terra Fina USA LLC
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Queens County)
Product Focus: Quiche
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its product as containing no artificial preservatives. The complaint asserts that the product contains ascorbic acid, which functions as a preservative. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the labeling. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief, while disclaiming punitive damages.
Case Spotlights
“Plant-Based Labeling and Consumer Expectations”
What the Lawsuit Alleges
In George v. Kellanova Inc., plaintiff Elaine George alleges that Kellanova falsely marketed its MorningStar Farms “Bacon Strips” as “plant-based.” The complaint states that the front packaging prominently features the claim, which allegedly signals to consumers that the product contains only non-animal ingredients.
According to the lawsuit, the product contains egg whites, disclosed only in the ingredient list and allergen statement. The plaintiff alleges that consumers would not expect a product labeled “plant-based” to include animal byproducts.
Why This Matters for Food & Beverage Brands
Plant-based marketing remains a growing focus in food labeling litigation and false advertising lawsuits. Plaintiffs often argue that front-of-package messaging drives consumer expectations more strongly than ingredient disclosures.
These cases reflect broader consumer product class action trends, where plaintiffs challenge perceived inconsistencies between marketing claims and ingredient composition.
Internal Reviews Brands Should Consider
- Verify whether animal-derived ingredients appear in products marketed as plant-based
- Confirm front-of-pack claims match ingredient disclosures
- Assess whether marketing could create stronger consumer expectations than intended
Litigation Risk Scorecard
Claim type: Plant-based / ingredient representation
Litigation driver: Consumer expectation mismatch
Primary legal theories: False advertising, consumer protection statutes
Industries at risk: Plant-based foods, alternative proteins
Brand takeaway: If any animal-derived ingredients appear in the formulation, “plant-based” claims should be carefully evaluated.
“Food Safety Claims and Contamination Litigation”
What the Lawsuits Allege
Two related lawsuits—Adkins v. Superfoods, Inc. and Varela v. Superfoods, Inc.—target Live It Up Super Greens supplements following a January 2026 recall for potential Salmonella contamination.
The complaints allege the company marketed the supplements as high-quality health products while failing to disclose contamination risk. One plaintiff alleges hospitalization from symptoms consistent with Salmonella poisoning.
Why This Matters for Food Manufacturers
Food safety incidents remain a major driver of food and beverage class actions. Recalls tied to pathogens such as Salmonella or E. coli often lead to litigation alleging that companies failed to disclose contamination risks.
Products marketed as safe, premium, or health-focused can face increased scrutiny following recalls.
Internal Reviews Brands Should Consider
- Supplier verification and pathogen testing programs
- Recall response and crisis communication procedures
- Marketing claims emphasizing safety or quality
Litigation Risk Scorecard
Claim type: Food safety / contamination disclosure
Litigation driver: Product recall and illness reports
Primary legal theories: Negligence, failure to warn, consumer protection laws
Industries at risk: Dietary supplements, functional foods
Brand takeaway: Strong quality systems and cautious safety claims can help reduce litigation exposure after contamination events.
Emerging Themes in February 2026 Class Actions
Clean label and “natural” claims
Many of February’s food and beverage class actions challenged “natural,” “nothing artificial,” and “no preservatives” claims. Plaintiffs targeted ingredients such as citric acid, erythritol, maltodextrin, and stevia extract, arguing that these ingredients contradict clean-label marketing.
Serving size math and nutrition claims
Several food labeling litigation cases focused on discrepancies between front-of-pack claims and ingredient quantities. Plaintiffs relied on laboratory testing to argue that supplements and snacks contained less of certain ingredients than advertised.
Contamination and safety disclosures
Food safety allegations also appeared across multiple filings involving Salmonella, E. coli, and heavy metals. These false advertising lawsuits often combine contamination claims with allegations that companies failed to disclose safety risks.
Origin and sourcing representations
Several lawsuits challenged geographic origin representations, including claims suggesting Swedish candy manufacturing or Hawaiian macadamia nut sourcing. These cases reflect broader consumer product class action trends involving authenticity and sourcing claims.
Practical Lessons for Brands and Manufacturers
Audit “Natural” Claims
Companies should periodically review “natural,” “clean label,” and “nothing artificial” claims to ensure they align with ingredient sourcing and processing methods.
Stress-Test Nutrition Claims
Nutrition and ingredient quantity claims should be validated through testing and regulatory review to ensure front-label statements align with Nutrition Facts disclosures.
Substantiate Health Benefits
Functional foods and supplements should have robust scientific substantiation before making health-related marketing claims.
Strengthen Supplier Verification
Manufacturers should maintain robust supplier qualification and microbial testing programs to reduce contamination risks.
Review Origin and Sustainability Claims
Geographic origin and environmental claims should be supported by clear documentation to minimize exposure to false advertising lawsuits.
Food Labeling Class Actions and Litigation Risk Management for Brands
Food and beverage companies face increasing scrutiny from plaintiffs’ firms targeting labeling claims, ingredient disclosures, and marketing representations. Juris Law Group, P.C. helps food, beverage, dietary supplement, and CPG companies proactively manage these risks through pre-litigation label and claim review.
Our team assists with marketing claim risk assessment, product launch risk analysis, and ongoing monitoring of food recalls and class action litigation affecting the industry.
By identifying potential risks early, companies can reduce exposure to costly consumer class actions.
To request a copy of any complaint or discuss how these trends may affect your portfolio, contact Juris Law Group P.C. at [email protected].
Related Resources from Juris Law Group, p.c.
• Food Recall Tracker / Recall Center
• Class Actions Newsletter Archive
• Prop 65 Violations and Compliance Resources
