Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, March 2026

Filing Volume and Jurisdictional Concentration

Thirty-two class actions were filed in March 2026, reinforcing ongoing consumer product class action trends and heightened food labeling litigation risk for CPG brands.

Plaintiffs concentrated filings in New York and California, signaling continued exposure for food and beverage manufacturers operating nationally. Litigation risks for food and beverage brands remain closely tied to labeling language, ingredient disclosures, and marketing claims that may create consumer perception gaps.

Significant Case Spotlights

Zambia Ford v. Kraft Heinz: Addictive Design and Public Nuisance

Plaintiffs allege a coordinated scheme among major packaged food and beverage manufacturers to engineer ultra-processed foods with addictive properties.

Kraft Heinz and other defendants face claims framed around public health deception, with allegations tied to product formulation and the targeting of children. Plaintiffs position the case as a large-scale consumer product class action challenging industry-wide conduct and long-term health impacts.

Defense Observations

Defense strategies can focus on challenging causation between product formulation and alleged long-term health outcomes, particularly where multiple lifestyle factors contribute to obesity and related conditions. Federal preemption arguments tied to FDA-regulated ingredient disclosures and labeling requirements remain available. Conspiracy allegations can also be contested by emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence showing coordinated conduct among competitors.

Evan Eichhorn v. MNG 2005: Failure to Disclose Addiction Risk

Plaintiffs allege kratom beverages create opioid-like dependency risks without adequate warnings to consumers.

MNG 2005 faces claims centered on omission of material safety disclosures, raising broader compliance concerns for dietary supplement companies and beverage brands marketing wellness products. There is focus on repeated consumption patterns and addiction risk tied to how the product is positioned to consumers.

Defense Observations

Defense arguments may challenge the scientific consensus regarding kratom’s pharmacological effects and whether it should be characterized as interacting with opioid receptors in a manner requiring warnings. The absence of a regulatory framework mandating addiction disclosures for such products provides an additional line of argument. Individualized reliance and causation may also be disputed, particularly where consumption levels vary significantly among users.

The “Natural” Claim Surge: Technical Challenges to Citric Acid

Plaintiffs filed nine actions targeting “natural” and “no artificial preservatives” claims across snack, beverage, and supplement products.

Country Crock, Sensible Portions, Target (ACV Gummies), and Positive Hydration appear among the brands facing allegations that citric acid functions as a synthetic preservative despite clean label positioning. Plaintiffs argue that industrial fermentation processes used to produce citric acid render it artificial, creating tension with marketing claims.

Plaintiffs rely on a “function over intent” theory, asserting that ingredient behavior—such as extending shelf life—determines whether a label is misleading regardless of formulation intent. Food labeling litigation continues to focus on these technical ingredient distinctions, increasing label risk for food manufacturers and packaged food companies relying on “natural,” “no artificial preservatives,” and similar claims.

Detailed Monthly Litigation Index (All 32 Cases)

Technical Risk Mitigation and Label Compliance

Labeling teams must closely align “natural” and “no artificial preservatives” claims with ingredient sourcing and processing methods to avoid inconsistencies between formulation and consumer-facing messaging. Supporting “no artificial flavors” and clean label positioning requires well-maintained documentation that clearly explains ingredient functionality and production processes.

Supply chain verification plays a central role in substantiating “100% [ingredient]” and origin claims, particularly where sourcing representations drive consumer purchasing decisions. Parallel efforts by quality and regulatory teams should include routine testing for heavy metals and contamination in food products, with disclosures calibrated to applicable regulatory thresholds.

Clear and complete allergen and safety disclosures remain critical, especially for products marketed to health-conscious consumers who rely on transparent labeling. Front-of-pack nutrition claims and serving size representations should undergo careful review to ensure alignment with FDA standards and to reduce exposure tied to consumer perception.

Cross-functional compliance systems that integrate marketing, legal, and QA oversight help identify emerging risks before products reach the market. Ongoing monitoring of food recalls and class actions involving similar products strengthens internal controls and supports efforts to mitigate food labeling litigation risk.

Strategic Counsel: Juris Law Group Defense and Compliance

At Juris Law Group, we advise food and beverage manufacturers, dietary supplement companies, and packaged food brands on reducing class action risk through pre-litigation label and claim review. Our focus is on identifying exposure tied to “natural,” “no artificial flavors,” and front-of-pack nutrition claims that frequently appear in false advertising lawsuits within the CPG space.

We also perform marketing claim risk assessments and substantiation audits to ensure your scientific support aligns with consumer-facing messaging. We provide comprehensive compliance reviews for food and beverage labels, covering everything from supplier documentation and ingredient traceability to alignment with evolving class action trends.

Through our defense-side risk assessments, we evaluate litigation risks for your brand, including class certification exposure and damages modeling. We monitor food and supplement class action trends and track the repeat plaintiff firms targeting similar labeling theories across multiple jurisdictions.

Contact us at [email protected].