Chosen Foods is facing a series of proposed class actions challenging one of the representations most closely associated with its brand: that certain mayonnaise, dressing, and marinade products are made with 100% pure avocado oil. The litigation follows a July 2026 UC Davis study that reported finding oils inconsistent with authentic avocado oil in many processed foods marketed with avocado oil as the sole oil ingredient. The company disputes the findings and states that it does not add seed oils to the challenged products.
The dispute raises a broader issue for food companies selling products around premium ingredients. When a brand expressly markets purity, ingredient composition, or the absence of particular oils, those statements can become objectively testable advertising claims. A disagreement over formulation can therefore move quickly from a quality-control issue into false advertising litigation, state consumer-protection exposure, and scrutiny of the substantiation behind the brand’s marketing.
Chosen Foods False Advertising Lawsuits Target “100% Pure Avocado Oil” Claims
UC Davis reported on July 15, 2026 that researchers tested 54 processed foods marketed as containing avocado oil and found 48—or 89%—contained other oils. The results included 93% of tested chip products, 71% of mayonnaise products, and all tested salad dressings. The researchers tested products purchased in 2025 and 2026 and identified the oils through fatty-acid and sterol analysis.
Chosen Foods was among the brands tested. According to pending lawsuits summarized by Truth in Advertising, plaintiffs allege that Chosen Foods falsely marketed certain mayonnaise, salad dressing, and marinade products as being made with “100% pure avocado oil” when testing allegedly indicated the presence of other vegetable or seed oils. At least four proposed class actions were filed against the company in August 2026 in federal courts in New York, California, and Louisiana. The cases remain pending, and the allegations have not been adjudicated.
Chosen Foods has directly rejected the underlying premise. In its response to the UC Davis study, the company stated that it begins with the same pure avocado oil used in its bottled cooking oils, does not add seed oils to its mayonnaise or dressings, and tests its avocado oil internally and through third parties. It also questioned whether the study’s testing procedures adequately accounted for the characteristics of finished products such as dressings and condiments.
That disagreement matters legally. False advertising cases involving food composition often turn on what a reasonable consumer would understand from the challenged representation, whether the representation is factually accurate, and what evidence supports the company’s claim. Here, “100% pure,” “no seed oils,” and statements concerning product testing provide plaintiffs with considerably more concrete representations to challenge than general statements about quality or taste.
“100% Pure” Food Labeling Creates a Higher Product Representation Risk
Chosen Foods has made avocado oil purity a prominent part of its consumer messaging. Its website states that it tests every batch of avocado oil, conducts external testing quarterly, and analyzes fatty-acid profiles to verify purity. The company separately states that its avocado oil is never mixed with seed oils or other additives.
Those statements illustrate why absolute food advertising claims deserve a different level of internal review. A representation such as “100% pure avocado oil” communicates a measurable characteristic about composition. A “no seed oils” representation similarly identifies something consumers are being told is absent from the product. When purity and testing are repeatedly used across packaging, product pages, advertising, and brand communications, the substantiation supporting those representations becomes part of the company’s advertising-risk profile.
The potential exposure is also extending beyond private litigation. On August 20, 2026, the Texas Attorney General announced an industry-wide investigation into products marketed as “made with avocado oil” following the UC Davis findings. Civil Investigative Demands were issued to Chosen Foods, Primal Kitchen, and Siete Foods as the state investigates possible violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act involving allegedly undisclosed oils.
The combination of proposed consumer class actions and government investigation changes the practical stakes. Marketing language that initially serves to distinguish a premium food product can become evidence examined across several proceedings, each potentially applying different consumer-protection theories and remedies.
Avocado Oil Claims Expose a Supplier Verification Gap for Food Brands
The less obvious legal issue sits upstream. A food company’s ingredient statement may accurately reflect its formulation records while laboratory analysis of the finished product produces a different result. That raises questions about what level of supplier verification and finished-product testing is appropriate before a brand makes an absolute composition claim.
For brand owners, relying on an ingredient specification or certificate of analysis may not resolve the advertising question. A company making an affirmative claim to consumers remains responsible for determining whether it has adequate support for that representation. Where the claim concerns ingredient authenticity, counsel should assess the relationship between supplier warranties, testing protocols, audit rights, indemnification provisions, manufacturing controls, and the language ultimately placed before consumers.
Chosen Foods makes this issue particularly instructive because it publicly describes its own testing procedures. The company says that it internally validates every batch of avocado oil and uses external testing quarterly. Its defense of the challenged products also raises a technical question that may become important in the litigation: whether testing an oil before incorporation into a finished product produces materially different conclusions from testing mayonnaise or dressing after other ingredients and processing steps have been introduced.
That distinction is the legal gap food companies should watch. Substantiation should correspond to the actual representation being made. If advertising describes the finished product as containing only a particular oil, companies should consider whether their verification program can substantiate that finished-product representation rather than merely confirming the identity of an incoming ingredient.
strategic by design: The Juris Law Group, p.c. Perspective
Our food and beverage attorneys in California frequently assess product claims by working backward from what consumers actually encounter: the front label, ingredient statement, website copy, retailer listing, social advertising, and supporting quality-control records. A statement may be technically defensible in isolation while creating broader Product Representation Risk when considered alongside other claims.
Ingredient-centered brands should pay particular attention to consistency across those channels. “Made with avocado oil,” “100% pure avocado oil,” and “no seed oils” can convey different messages about composition. Adding claims that every batch is tested or independently verified introduces another factual representation that should be supported by records showing what was tested, when it was tested, which methodology was used, and what conclusions the testing can reasonably establish.
The Chosen Foods litigation also demonstrates why legal review should reach beyond label text. Supplier agreements, testing programs, manufacturing records, and advertising substantiation should operate as connected parts of the same risk-management process. When premium positioning depends on ingredient authenticity, weaknesses anywhere in that chain can ultimately surface as Advertising Liability at the consumer-facing end of the business.
False Advertising Litigation Is Raising the Standard for Premium Ingredient Claims
Over the next 12 months, Chosen Foods will likely face continued scrutiny over both the underlying testing methodology and the meaning of its consumer-facing representations as the pending cases develop. The Texas investigation adds a separate enforcement track, while the company’s categorical denial creates a factual dispute over whether the UC Davis methodology accurately identifies oils in finished mayonnaise and dressing products. The outcome could provide useful guidance on how courts evaluate scientific testing when it conflicts with a manufacturer’s own quality-control evidence.
For the broader food industry, avocado oil may become a useful test case for premium ingredient advertising. UC Davis found alleged adulteration across several product categories rather than one company, and the Texas Attorney General has expressly characterized its inquiry as industry-wide. Brands making purity, absence, sourcing, or ingredient-specific claims should expect those representations to receive closer attention from plaintiffs, regulators, and consumers. The practical question will increasingly be whether the evidence maintained behind a premium claim is as specific as the claim itself.
Common Legal Inquiries
Can a food company face false advertising claims if a supplier provided inaccurate ingredient information?
Potentially. Supplier representations may affect contractual remedies and allocation of liability, but they do not necessarily eliminate consumer-facing exposure. Brands should assess supplier warranties, indemnification rights, testing records, manufacturing controls, and whether their own substantiation reasonably supports the advertising claims presented to consumers.
Are “made with avocado oil” and “100% pure avocado oil” legally equivalent claims?
Not necessarily. Consumer perception depends on the wording, placement, packaging context, ingredient list, and surrounding representations. An absolute “100% pure” claim can communicate a more specific composition representation than language stating that a product is “made with” an ingredient, although either can create exposure if the overall message is misleading.
Should food brands independently test ingredients before making purity claims?
The appropriate substantiation depends on the claim and product, but absolute purity or absence claims warrant careful support. Brands should evaluate whether supplier documentation, incoming-ingredient testing, finished-product testing, or a combination is appropriate and maintain records capable of supporting the specific representation made in labeling and advertising.
