Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, September 2026

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Gruns Nutrition deceptively markets its gummy products as “Sugar Free,” even though they allegedly contain between 6 and 9 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged sugar-free representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the representation when purchasing Superfoods Greens Gummies through Amazon and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Utz deceptively markets Boulder Canyon potato chips as made exclusively with avocado oil, even though testing allegedly indicates the products contain other vegetable oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study found Boulder Canyon Classic Sea Salt Kettle Chips compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, and subsequent independent testing of six additional samples allegedly produced similar results. Ashten Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent consumers across multiple states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and analogous state consumer-protection statutes, and seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Upstar Nutrition deceptively markets its Keto Pint ice cream products as containing “ZERO ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 3 to 7 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the zero-added-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing several Keto Pint products in Florida and paid a price premium. She seeks to represent nationwide and Florida classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Trapananda Seafarms deceptively markets its Mama Bear frozen Atlantic salmon products as “Sustainably Farm-Raised,” despite the salmon allegedly being produced through farming practices that negatively affect marine ecosystems and the environment. The complaint alleges environmental concerns including nutrient pollution, fish die-offs, antibiotic and chemical use, impacts on endangered wildlife, overcrowding, and feed sourcing linked to overfishing. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the sustainability representations when purchasing the products in Illinois and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, multistate consumer-protection, and Illinois classes, asserting claims including negligent misrepresentation and consumer-protection violations, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Universal Protein Supplements deceptively markets Animal 5g Creatine Chews in a manner that leads consumers to believe each chew contains 5 grams of creatine, when four chews are allegedly required to obtain the advertised 5-gram dosage. According to the complaint, the packaging prominently displays “5g Creatine” alongside the number of chewable tablets without clearly stating that the dosage applies to multiple chews. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the Grape flavor on Amazon.com and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL, FAL and CLRA, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that TSC Franchisor, doing business as Tropical Smoothie Cafe, deceptively markets numerous smoothie products as having the “right balance of health and nutrition” while allegedly adding significant amounts of sugar and failing to disclose turbinado sugar in the ingredient lists presented to consumers. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the listed ingredients when purchasing Lil Limeberry and Jetty Punch smoothies in New York and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained undisclosed added sugar. She seeks to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks class certification, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Nature’s Fusions deceptively labels its Nutri Berberine + Ceylon Cinnamon supplement as providing “1,300 mg per serving” alongside “120 Vegan Capsules,” allegedly leading consumers to believe each capsule provides 1,300 mg and the bottle contains 120 such servings. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts instead disclose that a serving consists of two capsules, meaning the bottle contains only 60 servings and each capsule provides approximately 650 mg. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations and paid a price premium. She seeks to represent New York consumers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and the Agriculture and Markets Law, and seeks actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that PepsiCo deceptively markets certain Siete and Simply Tostitos products as made with “Avocado Oil,” allegedly leading consumers to believe avocado oil is the products’ exclusive oil ingredient, when independent testing allegedly found chemical profiles consistent with dilution or substitution by other oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study found the tested products lacked the chemical composition of authentic avocado oil and were consistent with other oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representations and paid a price premium. He seeks to represent nationwide and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Chobani deceptively markets its 32-ounce yogurt as providing “20G” of protein per serving by using an allegedly inflated serving size. According to the complaint, Chobani declares a serving as ¾ cup, or 190 grams, whereas FDA serving-size rules allegedly require ⅔ cup, or approximately 169 grams, which would contain only about 17.8 grams of protein. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the labeling and paid a price premium for a product worth less than represented. They seek to represent nationwide, New York, and Florida classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and false-advertising statute, and unjust enrichment, and seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Kensington & Sons deceptively markets its Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as made with avocado oil, even though testing allegedly found the oil composition inconsistent with authentic avocado oil and indicative of dilution or substitution with another oil. According to the complaint, a 2026 study tested two samples of the product and found both compositionally inconsistent with avocado oil, while Defendant’s labeling and website allegedly represent the product as made with or containing “100% avocado oil.” Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the product in Illinois and paid a price premium. He seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Promotion In Motion deceptively markets Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing “ZERO SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain at least approximately 3 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling standards, making the zero-sugar representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the representation when purchasing Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites, Mixed Fruit, in New York and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent a nationwide class and multiple state subclasses, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, various state consumer-protection statutes, breach of express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chosen Foods deceptively markets its avocado oil products as containing “100% Pure Avocado Oil” and guarantees their purity through batch testing, even though independent testing allegedly found Chosen Foods products compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. A 2026 UC Davis study allegedly found both tested lots of four Chosen Foods mayonnaise and dressing products, including Classic Mayo, inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the purity representations when purchasing Classic Mayo and Avocado Oil Spray in Louisiana and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and Louisiana classes, asserting claims for breach of express warranty, redhibition, violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, rescission, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Gruns Nutrition deceptively markets its Superfoods Greens Gummies as “Sugar Free,” even though the products allegedly contain 8 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the “Sugar Free” representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the Original Sugar-Free gummies in California and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, multi-state, and California classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL and FAL, materially similar state consumer-protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Grüns Nutrition and Unilever deceptively market dietary supplement gummies as “Sugar Free” and declare no more than 0.5 grams of total sugars per serving, even though the products allegedly contain 6 to 9 grams of allulose per serving. Plaintiffs contend that allulose is a sugar and that the products therefore do not qualify as sugar-free under applicable labeling requirements. They allege they relied on the sugar-free representations and paid more than they otherwise would have paid. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and New York, California, and Pennsylvania subclasses, asserting claims under those states’ consumer-protection laws, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Chobani deceptively markets its Zero Sugar yogurt as containing “zero sugar” and “no sugar,” even though each serving allegedly contains 4 grams of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as a sugar under FDA regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the zero-sugar representations when purchasing the yogurt and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had they known it contained allulose. They seek to represent New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania classes, asserting claims under those states’ consumer-protection and false-advertising laws, and seek actual, statutory, treble, punitive and other damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its protein cereals as containing “0g Total Sugars Per Serving,” even though the products allegedly contain between 5 and 10 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged sugar-free representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Magic Spoon Fruity Cereal in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. She seeks to represent California purchasers, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Goli Nutrition deceptively markets its gummy dietary supplements as containing “ZERO SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 1 to 2 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling standards, making the challenged zero-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the representation when purchasing Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies in New York and paid a price premium. He seeks to represent nationwide, multi-state, New York, and California classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, California’s UCL and FAL, analogous state consumer-protection statutes, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Primal Nutrition deceptively markets Primal Kitchen products as made with avocado oil when the products allegedly contain diluted or substituted oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 study tested several Primal Kitchen products and found their oil composition inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, while the products’ labels and Defendant’s website allegedly emphasize avocado oil without disclosing other oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing Primal Kitchen mayonnaise in Illinois and California and paid a price premium. They seek to represent nationwide, Illinois, and California classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment, and seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Flagstone Foods deceptively markets various Emerald Nuts products as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Synthetic Colors,” even though the products allegedly contain maltodextrin. According to the complaint, maltodextrin is a highly processed synthetic ingredient that allegedly functions as both an artificial flavor and preservative, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing Emerald Dry Roasted Seasoned Almonds and Hot Honey Cashews in Florida and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and Florida classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Liv Group deceptively markets Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free products as “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar,” and “0 Sugar,” even though they allegedly contain four or five grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, allegedly exceeding the 0.5-gram threshold for sugar-free claims by at least eight times. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Sugar Free” representation when purchasing the Lemon Lime product in California and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants sold Taco Bell menu items containing shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora during a 2026 multistate outbreak linked to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms. Plaintiff alleges he purchased two Spicy Potato Soft Tacos containing the affected lettuce in Illinois and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known the lettuce was contaminated and unfit for consumption. The action seeks recovery for economic loss rather than personal injury. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois classes, asserting claims for breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligence per se, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Hain Celestial deceptively markets Sensible Portions Sea Salt Garden Veggie Straws as “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL,” with avocado oil also listed as the product’s only oil, even though testing allegedly found the oil composition inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two separate production lots and found both compositionally inconsistent with avocado oil and indicative of substitution or dilution with cheaper vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the product in New York and paid a price premium. He seeks to represent nationwide and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, intentional misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Bloom Nu deceptively markets its Bloom Pop prebiotic sodas as containing “No artificial flavors, colors, or preservatives,” even though the products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid, which the complaint characterizes as an artificial ingredient that functions as a preservative. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Bloom Pop Shirley Temple through Amazon while residing in California and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, California, multi-state consumer-protection, and multi-state warranty classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, various state consumer-protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The J.M. Smucker Co. deceptively markets Café Bustelo ground coffee and K-Cup coffee pods as “Decaffeinated,” leading consumers to believe the products are effectively free of caffeine, even though they allegedly contain measurable residual caffeine. According to the complaint, an eight-ounce serving may contain approximately 7 mg of caffeine, which Plaintiff contends is material to consumers who avoid caffeine for health or medical reasons. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the decaffeinated representation when purchasing the product in New York and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained caffeine. He seeks to represent a nationwide class, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment, and seeks actual and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling and warnings, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that The Simply Good Foods Company deceptively markets Atkins snacks and Quest protein bars as containing only one or two grams—or less—of sugar, even though the products allegedly contain significant amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, with certain products allegedly containing up to 8 grams per serving for Atkins products and 11 grams per bar for Quest products. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the low-sugar representations when purchasing the products in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had they known their alleged true sugar content. They seek to represent multi-state and California classes, asserting claims under state consumer-protection laws, California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, and unjust enrichment, and seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that WK Kellogg deceptively markets Special K Plus High Protein cereals as containing “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” and “0g ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose syrup. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, with the Strawberry Crème products allegedly containing 4 grams of allulose per serving and the Cinnamon product containing 3 grams per serving. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the zero-added-sugar representations when purchasing Special K Plus High Protein Strawberry Crème Cereal in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the product contained added allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL, FAL and CLRA, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment/restitution, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that KIND deceptively markets its Zero Added Sugar bars as containing “ZEROg ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 5 grams of allulose per bar. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged zero-added-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the representation when purchasing KIND Zero Added Sugar Dark Chocolate Nuts & Sea Salt Bars in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained added allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sprouts deceptively markets its Organic Sea Salt & A Hint of Lime Tortilla Chips as “Made With Avocado Oil,” with avocado oil listed as the product’s only edible oil, even though testing allegedly found the oil composition inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two separate production lots and found both inconsistent with avocado oil, with results allegedly indicating substitution or dilution with cheaper seed oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the product in California and paid a price premium. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Ken’s Foods deceptively markets its Ray’s products as containing “NO SUGAR ADDED,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as an added ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and New York labeling standards, making the challenged no-sugar-added representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the representation when purchasing Ray’s No Sugar Added Original Barbecue Sauce in New York and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, multi-state, and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, materially similar state consumer-protection statutes, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and class.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Schell & Kampeter deceptively markets Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food as healthy, safe, and inspired by dogs’ natural diets while failing to disclose an alleged increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and related cardiac damage associated with grain-free, high-legume diets. Plaintiffs contend Defendant knew or should have known of these risks but continued making health and safety representations without adequately testing or warning consumers. They allege they relied on the marketing when repeatedly purchasing the products in New York and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had the cardiac risks been disclosed. They seek to represent New York purchasers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/omission, and unjust enrichment, and seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Quest Nutrition deceptively markets its Crispy Hero Protein Bars as containing only “1g SUGAR PER BAR” or “2g SUGAR PER BAR,” even though the products allegedly contain an additional 7 to 13 grams of allulose per bar. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and New York labeling standards, making the challenged sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the “1g SUGAR PER BAR” representation when purchasing Chocolate Caramel Pecan bars in New York and paid a price premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide, multi-state, and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, materially similar state consumer-protection statutes, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chobani deceptively markets its Zero Sugar Greek Yogurt products as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though they allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, with each serving allegedly containing more than 3 grams of allulose. Plaintiff alleges he regularly purchased several Chobani Zero Sugar varieties in Florida in reliance on the zero-sugar representations and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known they contained allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and Florida classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Monin deceptively markets numerous syrup products as “Sugar Free,” even though they allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged sugar-free representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the “Sugar Free” representation when purchasing Monin Sugar Free French Vanilla Syrup in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained allulose. He seeks to represent California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment/restitution, and common-law fraud, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Primal Nutrition deceptively markets Primal Kitchen products as made exclusively with pure avocado oil and without other oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested Primal Kitchen Oil & Vinegar Dressing, Italian Dressing, and Mayo and found all tested samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, allegedly indicating substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing various Primal Kitchen products and paid a price premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide, Florida, and Utah classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL and CLRA, Florida’s FDUTPA, Utah’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, and breach of contract, and seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Ken’s Foods deceptively markets Ray’s No Sugar Added barbecue and dipping sauces as containing “No Sugar Added,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose added as a sweetener. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “No Sugar Added” representation when purchasing Ray’s barbecue sauce in New York and would have valued the product less and paid less had she known sugar was added during processing. She seeks to represent New York purchasers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and seeks actual, statutory and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Supplying Demand deceptively markets Liquid Death Sparkling Energy drinks as containing “Zero Sugar” and “0g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their second-listed and predominant ingredient by weight. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the sugar-free representations when purchasing Scary Strawberry and Tropical Terror products in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Ken’s Foods deceptively markets Sweet Baby Ray’s sauces and marinades as containing “No Sugar Added,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representation false and misleading because allulose is intentionally added during manufacturing. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the “No Sugar Added” representation when purchasing Sweet Baby Ray’s Original Barbecue Sauce in New York and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained added allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and for fraud, and seeks damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Luthman Backlund Foods deceptively markets Nick’s Light Ice Cream as containing “No Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representation false and misleading because allulose is intentionally added during manufacturing. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the representation when purchasing several Nick’s Light Ice Cream flavors in New York, including Mint Chocolate Chip, Strawberry Swirl, and Peanut Butter Cup, and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known they contained added allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and New York classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and for fraud, and seeks damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that TC Heartland deceptively markets Splenda Magic Baker Brown Sugar as “Sugar Free” and containing “0g Sugar Per Serving,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as a sugar under federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged sugar-free representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he reviewed and relied on the product’s sugar representations when purchasing it in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained sugar. He seeks to represent California purchasers, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its Sweet & Sour Gummy Worm Candies as containing “0g Sugar Per Serving,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as a sugar under federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged zero-sugar representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he reviewed and relied on the product’s sugar representations when purchasing it in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it contained sugar. He seeks to represent California purchasers, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and corrective advertising relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Wild Planet deceptively markets its Wild Sardines in Extra Virgin Olive Oil as “Lightly Smoked,” even though the sardines allegedly are never subjected to a traditional smoking process and instead derive their smoke flavor from added “aqueous natural smoke,” or liquid smoke. According to the complaint, the labeling leads consumers to believe the sardines were genuinely smoked, a process associated with greater cost and premium quality, while the product allegedly uses a cheaper flavoring method. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Lightly Smoked” representation when purchasing the product in New York and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known how it was produced. She seeks to represent New York purchasers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and for unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that WK Kellogg deceptively markets certain Special K cereals as containing “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” or “0g ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately four grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the zero-added-sugar representation when purchasing Special K Plus High Protein Strawberry Crème Cereal in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The LIV Group deceptively markets Liquid I.V. Sugar-Free products as containing “Sugar-Free,” “Zero Sugar,” and “0 Sugar,” even though they allegedly contain four to five grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the sugar-free representations when purchasing Liquid I.V. Lemon Lime Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free in Florida and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and Florida classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that KIND deceptively markets its ZERO Added Sugar bars as containing “ZEROg ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 3 to 5 grams of allulose per bar. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the zero-added-sugar representations when purchasing the products in Virginia, New York, and Oregon and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had they known the products contained added allulose. They seek to represent Virginia, New York, and Oregon classes, asserting claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that PIM Brands deceptively markets Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose added as a sweetener. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged zero-sugar representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing the products in New York and would have valued them less and paid less had she known they contained added allulose. She seeks to represent New York purchasers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and seeks actual, statutory, treble, punitive, and consequential damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Linus Technology Mergersub deceptively markets DAVID Gold protein bars as containing “0g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, with the original formulation allegedly containing seven grams of allulose per bar. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the zero-sugar representations when purchasing a subscription for the products in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known they contained allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL and for unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, injunctive relief, damages where available, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Petco deceptively markets its WholeHearted Grain Free Dog Food as healthy, nutritionally balanced, and providing “maximum benefits,” while allegedly failing to disclose that grain-free, high-legume diets are associated with an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and related cardiac damage in dogs. Plaintiff alleges she relied on Petco’s health and nutrition representations when repeatedly purchasing WholeHearted Grain Free Beef & Pea Recipe for her dogs, one of whom allegedly developed congestive heart failure and died, while the other was diagnosed with heart issues. She seeks to represent nationwide and Connecticut classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL, strict liability for design defect and failure to warn, negligence, and Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dollar General deceptively markets its Sweet Smiles Strawberry Yogurt Covered Pretzels in a manner that leads consumers to believe strawberries are the primary source of the product’s strawberry taste. According to the complaint, the product allegedly contains only a negligible amount of real strawberry ingredients and instead derives part of its strawberry taste from added natural flavors, without identifying the product as “strawberry flavored.” Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Strawberry Yogurt Covered Pretzels” labeling, strawberry imagery, and absence of a flavor qualifier when purchasing the product in New York and paid a price premium. She seeks to represent New York consumers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and the Agriculture and Markets Law, and seeks actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Utz deceptively markets Boulder Canyon potato chips as cooked exclusively in avocado oil, even though scientific testing allegedly indicates otherwise. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two separate production lots of the product and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, with results suggesting substitution or dilution with cheaper vegetable or seed oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the product in California and New York and paid a price premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide, California, and New York classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL, FAL and CLRA, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dr. John’s Healthy Sweets deceptively markets its Gummy Squares as “Sugar Free,” even though the products allegedly contain several grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff further alleges that allulose is the second-listed ingredient by weight and that the products lack disclosures required for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff claims he relied on these representations when purchasing the products in California and paid a price premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent California consumers, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Creation Foods US Inc. deceptively markets its HighKey Original Sandwich Cookies as “Sugar-Free” and containing “0g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 5 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and New York labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations when purchasing the products in New York and paid a price premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent New York consumers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive business practices and false advertising, and seek actual and statutory damages, treble damages for willful violations, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Panera deceptively markets its Panera at Home Mac & Cheese products as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” even though the products contain sodium citrate. According to the complaint, sodium citrate is an industrially manufactured ingredient that allegedly functions as an artificial preservative by helping prevent food deterioration and extending shelf life, making the challenged labeling false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the product in Missouri and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Missouri consumers who purchased the products, asserting claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its protein cereals as containing “0g Total Sugars” and being sugar-free, even though the products allegedly contain 10 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the products’ zero-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing Magic Spoon Fruity Protein Cereal in Illinois and paid a price premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and state-specific classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that So Nourished deceptively markets its allulose-based sweeteners as “Sugar Free” and containing “0g Total Sugars,” even though the products allegedly contain four grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing So Nourished Allulose Monk Fruit Sweetener through Amazon in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known its alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent a California class, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its Sweet & Sour Gummy Worms Candies as containing “0g Sugar per serving” and “0g Total Sugars,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose as its second ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the zero-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the product in Illinois and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known its alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants deceptively market Quest Crispy Hero Protein Bars as containing only one or two grams of sugar per bar, even though the products allegedly contain seven to thirteen grams of added allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the “1g Sugar per Bar” representation when purchasing Quest Crispy Hero Cookies & Cream Protein Bars in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known they contained eleven grams of allulose per bar. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Haleon deceptively markets its Emergen-C gummy supplements as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff further alleges that allulose is the second-listed ingredient and that the products contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing Emergen-C Vitamin C 250mg Gummies through Amazon in Florida and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained allulose. She seeks to represent a Florida consumer class, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips as containing no added sugar, even though the product allegedly contains approximately 10 to 12 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the “No Sugar Added” representation when purchasing the product in Illinois and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had they known its alleged sugar content. They seek to represent Illinois and multistate classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its Sweet & Sour Gummy Worms as containing “0g Sugar per serving,” even though the product allegedly contains several grams of allulose per serving, potentially approaching 10 grams. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged sugar-free representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the gummy worms in California and paid a price premium. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Conagra Brands deceptively markets its Duncan Hines Keto Friendly baking mixes as containing “0g Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 4 to 5 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as a sugar under applicable federal labeling standards, making the challenged zero-added-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Duncan Hines Keto Friendly Classic Yellow Cake Mix through Amazon in New York and paid a price premium. She seeks to represent nationwide and state-specific consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, state consumer-protection statutes, breach of express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants deceptively market Siete potato and tortilla chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” leading consumers to believe the products are made entirely with avocado oil, even though they allegedly contain cheaper vegetable seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each product and found all four samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with seed oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing a Siete Chips Variety Pack in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. He seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Campbell’s Company deceptively markets Kettle Brand Avocado Oil potato chips as being made exclusively with avocado oil, even though the products allegedly contain cheaper vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study found Kettle Brand samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, while additional independent laboratory testing allegedly confirmed fatty acid profiles indicative of substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the chips online in Illinois and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent consumers across 14 states and Washington, D.C., asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and analogous state consumer protection statutes. She seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its protein cereals as containing “0g Total Sugars per Serving,” even though the products allegedly contain between 5 and 10 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the zero-sugar representation when purchasing Magic Spoon Fruity Cereal at Costco in California and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. She seeks to represent California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chicago Candy Company deceptively markets its Hormbles Chormbles protein bars and candies as containing “0g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 7 to 8 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the zero-sugar representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Salted Fudge and Milk Chocolate varieties at a Target store in Sacramento, California, and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known their alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sprouts Farmers Market deceptively markets its avocado oil chips as “Made With 100% Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study and subsequent independent laboratory testing found that several Sprouts chip varieties exhibited oil compositions inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado oil representations when purchasing at least fourteen bags of Sprouts Kettle Style Potato Chips in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they were not made exclusively with avocado oil. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, FAL and UCL, and seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Upstar Nutrition deceptively markets its Keto Pint ice creams and ice cream bars as containing “Zero Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain several grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Zero Added Sugar” representation when purchasing Keto Pint Mint Chip Ice Cream in California, which allegedly contains seven grams of allulose per serving, and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known its alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants deceptively market Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as made with “100% avocado oil,” even though the product allegedly contains oil that is inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two separate production lots and found that neither matched the expected composition of authentic avocado oil, suggesting possible substitution or dilution with cheaper vegetable or seed oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado oil representations when purchasing a 12-ounce jar in California for $12.79 and paid a premium for a product she believed contained exclusively avocado oil. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express and implied warranties, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Siete deceptively markets its Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” even though the product allegedly contains oil that is compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two separate production lots and found that both exhibited chemical profiles suggesting substitution or dilution with cheaper seed oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado oil representations when repeatedly purchasing the product in California and paid a premium for chips he believed contained exclusively avocado oil. He seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages where permitted, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Game Time Supplements deceptively markets its AminoLean MAX pre-workout powders as containing “Natural Flavors” and “No Artificial Flavors or Colors,” even though the products allegedly contain DL-malic acid, a synthetic artificial flavoring ingredient. According to the complaint, laboratory testing conducted in 2026 confirmed the presence of DL-malic acid in the Strawberry Lemonade variety, contradicting the products’ labeling representations. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these claims when purchasing the product in Fresno, California, and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained artificial flavors. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation/fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this individual personal injury lawsuit alleging that Defendants negligently produced, distributed, and sold shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora, causing her to develop cyclosporiasis during a 2026 multistate outbreak. According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased Taco Bell food through Uber Eats in Michigan on July 3, 2026, and developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms four days later. She alleges that subsequent laboratory testing confirmed a Cyclospora infection, requiring multiple urgent care visits, emergency treatment, and medication, with dehydration aggravating her asthma. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to implement adequate food safety procedures, prevent contamination, issue timely recalls, and warn consumers. She asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability based on manufacturing defect and failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties. She seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost earnings, physical suffering, emotional distress, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sprouts deceptively markets its tortilla and potato chips as made with avocado oil, even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed seed oils. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each product and found all four samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado oil representations when purchasing the products through Uber Eats in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known their alleged composition. She seeks to represent nationwide and California classes, asserting claims under California’s UCL, FAL and CLRA, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Nature’s Way deceptively markets its Alive! Zero Sugar Women’s Multivitamin Gummies as “Sugar Free,” even though the products allegedly contain several grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the second-listed ingredient and that the products contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the product in California and paid a price premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its No Sugar Added Dark Chocolate Chips as containing no added sugar, even though the product allegedly contains approximately 10 to 12 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the “No Sugar Added” representation when purchasing the product in Illinois and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had they known its alleged sugar content. They seek to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Project 7 deceptively markets its Joyride candy products as containing zero sugar, even though they allegedly contain eight or thirteen grams of allulose per serving, depending on the variety. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ predominant ingredient and that the amounts exceed the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff further alleges reliance on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing Joyride Sour Peachy Mango Rings at a Target store in Chicago, Illinois, and paying a premium. Plaintiff seeks to represent Illinois and eight-state consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Taylor Farms deceptively marketed and sold food products as safe for consumption while failing to disclose their alleged contamination or risk of contamination with Salmonella. According to the complaint, Taylor Farms announced a recall on August 9, 2026, following concerns about potentially contaminated jalapeño peppers used in products distributed across 26 states. Plaintiff alleges he purchased Salsa Fresca Medium and Salsa Verde Mild at a Whole Foods store in Illinois in July 2026 and consumed them before learning of the recall. He claims the products were worthless or worth less than their purchase price because of the undisclosed contamination risk. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Walmart deceptively markets its bettergoods Finely Ground Cassava Flour Hatch Chile Tortilla Chips as “Fried in 100% avocado oil,” even though the product allegedly contains undisclosed, cheaper seed oils instead of authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, with one sample exhibiting fatty acid and sterol profiles more consistent with soybean oil. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representation when purchasing the chips at a Walmart store in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known their alleged composition. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this consumer protection action alleging that Twinlab Consolidation Corporation deceptively markets its Reserveage Beauty Resveratrol Gummies by prominently displaying “100 MG” and “60 Gummies” on the front label, leading consumers to believe that each gummy contains 100 milligrams of resveratrol. According to the complaint, the product actually contains 50 milligrams per gummy, with 100 milligrams provided only by a two-gummy serving. Consequently, the bottle allegedly contains 30 servings and 3,000 milligrams of resveratrol rather than the 60 servings and 6,000 milligrams consumers might reasonably expect. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the product in New York and paid an inflated price. She may seek to represent a class of New York consumers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and the New York Agriculture and Markets Law. She seeks actual damages, discretionary attorneys’ fees, and potential class certification, expressly excluding statutory penalties and punitive damages.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Hero Labs deceptively markets its Hero Bread products as containing “0G SUGAR,” even though they allegedly contain between 1 and 8 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the zero-sugar representation when purchasing Hero Classic Burger Buns in California and paid a price premium for a product containing one gram of allulose per bun. He seeks to represent nationwide, multistate, and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks actual and statutory damages, punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Wholesome Yum Brands deceptively markets its Zero Sugar Maple Syrup as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the product allegedly contains 26 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the zero-sugar representation when purchasing the syrup through Amazon in California in January 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known its alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Markwins Beauty Products deceptively markets its Lip Smacker lip balms as “Vegan” on Amazon, even though the products allegedly contain animal-derived ingredients, including beeswax and acetylated lanolin alcohol, a substance derived from sheep’s wool. According to the complaint, these ingredients contradict the vegan representations and mislead consumers seeking cosmetics free of animal-derived ingredients or by-products. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Vegan” representation when purchasing Lip Smacker Lippy Pals Unicorn through Amazon in California in November 2024 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known the alleged truth. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Conopco deceptively markets Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as being made with “100% avocado oil,” even though the product allegedly contains cheaper refined vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two separate production lots and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing two jars through Amazon in California and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide, California, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), analogous state consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Grüns Nutrition and Unilever deceptively market their dietary supplement gummies as “Sugar Free,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. The products allegedly contain multiple grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Sugar Free” representation when purchasing Grüns gummies at a Target store in Illinois in July 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Supplying Demand deceptively markets its Liquid Death Sparkling Energy Drinks as containing “0g Sugar” and “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their second-most predominant ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing a Liquid Death Sparkling Energy Variety Pack through Amazon in August 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the products contained allulose. He seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Supplying Demand deceptively markets Liquid Death Sparkling Energy Drinks as containing “0g Sugar” and “Zero Sugar,” while also promoting them as “Better-for-You Energy Drinks,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their second-listed ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Liquid Death Scary Strawberry drinks at Target in Florida, including a purchase in September 2026, and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and Florida consumer classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Haleon deceptively markets its Emergen-C Zero Sugar Vitamin C Immune Support Gummies as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately four grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the zero-sugar representation and Supplement Facts panel when purchasing the gummies through Amazon in California in September 2026 and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known their alleged sugar content. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. She seeks restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Unilever and The LIV Group deceptively market Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier Sugar-Free products as “SUGAR-FREE,” even though they allegedly contain at least four grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ primary ingredient and that its quantity exceeds the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims by at least eight times. She further alleges she relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing the products at Costco in California and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). She seeks restitution, injunctive relief requiring compliant labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification. The complaint presently seeks injunctive relief only under the CLRA, reserving the possibility of pursuing damages after satisfying statutory notice requirements.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Pete and Gerry’s Organics deceptively markets its eggs as “Free Range” and “Pasture Raised,” even though the laying hens allegedly live in overcrowded facilities that prevent many from accessing outdoor areas. According to the complaint, supplier farms house up to 20,000 hens per facility, and drone surveillance allegedly revealed little or no outdoor activity despite favorable weather conditions. Plaintiff further challenges packaging representations promising outdoor access and “108 SQ FT PER HEN.” He alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the products in California and paid a premium for eggs he believed came from hens with meaningful outdoor access. He seeks to represent nationwide, California, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under California consumer protection laws and related legal theories. He seeks damages, restitution, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Wholesome Yum Brands deceptively markets its syrups and sweeteners as containing “Zero Sugar” or being “Sugar Free,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, with certain products containing up to 26 grams per serving. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the zero-sugar representations when purchasing Wholesome Yum products at retailers in Illinois and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Swedish Candy Group deceptively markets its Sockerbit Swedish Candy products as containing “No Artificial Colors or Flavors,” even though the products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid. According to the complaint, manufactured citric acid functions as an artificial flavoring ingredient by contributing tartness and modifying the products’ flavor profiles, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the labeling when purchasing Sockerbit Swedish Candy Sour Mix at a Target store in Oakland, California, in August 2026 and would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had she known the alleged truth. She seeks to represent similarly situated consumers, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. She seeks monetary relief, restitution, injunctive relief requiring changes to the challenged marketing or products, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that The Campbell’s Company deceptively markets Kettle Brand potato chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed seed oils rather than authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each product and found their fatty acid and plant sterol profiles inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the products in California, including purchases at Bristol Farms and through Amazon, and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had they known the alleged truth. They seek to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. They seek actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants sold Qdoba restaurant meals containing jalapeño peppers contaminated with Salmonella Javiana during a 2026 multistate outbreak linked to peppers distributed by Coast Citrus. According to the complaint, the outbreak affected 431 individuals across 32 states and resulted in 57 hospitalizations. Plaintiffs allege they became ill after consuming Qdoba meals containing the affected jalapeños in Colorado and Oregon, experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms, with Trujillo also reporting missed work and lost wages. They contend Defendants failed to adequately test, handle, and warn consumers about the contaminated ingredients, causing both physical injuries and economic losses. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide, Colorado, and Oregon consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, strict product liability, negligence, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Linus Technology deceptively markets DAVID Protein Bars as containing “0g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain significant amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the products contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving and that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce the allegedly misleading claims. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing a DAVID Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Protein Bar at Wawa in Florida in August 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known its alleged sugar content. He seeks to represent nationwide and Florida consumer classes, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment. He seeks actual and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its protein cereals as containing “0g Total Sugars,” “0g Added Sugar,” and “No Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, with certain varieties containing approximately 5 to 10 grams per serving, allegedly exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Fruity and Chocolate Chip Cookie cereals at Walmart in Chicago in April 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that P.I.M. Brands deceptively markets Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing “ZERO SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Oregon labeling standards. Plaintiffs allege that allulose is the products’ second-listed ingredient and that each serving contains at least 0.5 grams, exceeding the regulatory threshold for zero-sugar claims. Plaintiffs purchased the products through Amazon and Walgreens in Oregon in 2026 and allege they paid a price premium based on the misleading representations. They seek to represent an Oregon consumer class, asserting claims under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act for willful, reckless, or knowing violations. They seek actual or statutory damages, including $200 per class member or actual damages if greater, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that PIM Brands deceptively markets Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing “ZERO SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their second-listed ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the products at a Walmart store in Chicago, Illinois, in March 2025 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent an Illinois subclass and a multistate consumer class covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Monin deceptively markets its Sugar Free Syrups as containing no sugar, even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards. The products allegedly contain five to seven grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the “Sugar Free” representation when purchasing Monin Sugar Free White Chocolate Syrup at a Walmart store in Lake Zurich, Illinois, and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Garza Food Ventures deceptively markets Siete potato and tortilla chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper refined vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two separate production lots of each product and found all samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the products in New York and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, intentional misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants deceptively market Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing no sugar, even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that the products contain at least approximately three grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. He also challenges the representation that the products contain “25% Fewer Calories” than original Welch’s fruit snacks, alleging that the stated reduction from 90 to 70 calories equals approximately 22.2%. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the zero-sugar representations when purchasing the Mixed Fruit variety through Amazon in California and paid a price premium. He asserts claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Conopco deceptively markets Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as containing exclusively avocado oil, even though the product allegedly contains cheaper vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study analyzed two independently obtained production lots and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representations when repeatedly purchasing the product at retailers in California throughout 2026, paying approximately $11 to $16 per jar and a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages where available, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Ryl Company deceptively markets its iced tea products as containing “Zero Sugar” and “0 Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ second-listed ingredient and that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce the allegedly misleading zero-sugar claims. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing a Ryl Iced Tea Variety Best Sellers pack at Costco in Illinois for approximately $29.99 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Luthman Backlund Foods deceptively markets its N!CK’S Light Ice Cream products as containing “No Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose added during processing. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, with the products allegedly containing approximately 6.3 to 7.7 grams of allulose per serving. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the representation when purchasing N!CK’S Triple Chocolate Brownie Light Ice Cream in San Joaquin County, California, in January 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that BA Sports Nutrition deceptively markets its BODYARMOR Flash I.V. beverages as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain significant amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the third-listed ingredient and that the beverages contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, making the challenged representations false and misleading. He further alleges he relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing BODYARMOR Flash I.V. Zero Sugar Lemon Lime at Ralphs in Whittier, California, and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that KIND deceptively markets its Zero Added Sugar Bars as containing “ZeroG Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately three to five grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing KIND Zero Added Sugar Caramel Almond & Sea Salt Bars at Walmart in Chicago in March 2026 for approximately $7.28 and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained added allulose. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sports Research deceptively markets its dietary supplement gummies as “Sugar-Free,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff further alleges that the products' ingredient lists omit the asterisk and explanatory disclosure required for sugar-free claims involving sugar ingredients, rendering the labeling misleading and noncompliant. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Sports Research Vitamin C Gummies in California and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Conagra Brands deceptively markets its Wish-Bone salad dressings as containing “No Sugar Added,” even though the products allegedly contain added allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff further alleges that the products' Nutrition Facts panels reinforce these claims by declaring “0g Total Sugars” and “0g Added Sugars.” She alleges she relied on the representations when purchasing Wish-Bone No Sugar Added Italian Dressing at Publix in Florida on September 11, 2026, and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. She seeks to represent a Florida consumer class, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chosen Foods deceptively markets its mayonnaise and salad dressings as “Made with 100% Pure Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed seed oils. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each of the four products and found all eight samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the purity representations when repeatedly purchasing Chosen Foods Classic Mayo in Iowa and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, alongside an individual claim under Iowa’s consumer fraud statute. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling and independent authenticity testing, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Anza Nutraceuticals deceptively markets its BioEmblem dietary supplements by prominently advertising dosage amounts that consumers allegedly interpret as applying to each capsule or softgel, when the stated amounts actually require multiple units. According to the complaint, consumers must take two capsules to obtain the advertised 300 mg of magnesium, four softgels for 2000 mg of fish oil, or three capsules for 1950 mg of turmeric curcumin. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the dosage representations when purchasing BioEmblem Triple Magnesium Complex 300 mg through Amazon in California and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that YumEarth deceptively marketed its candy products as “allergy friendly – TOP 9 FREE,” even though they were allegedly manufactured using a processing aid containing gluten-free wheat starch. According to the complaint, YumEarth acknowledged its use of wheat-derived starch in February 2026 and subsequently updated its packaging to disclose “CONTAINS WHEAT,” without changing the products’ formulations. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the allergen-free representations when purchasing Sour Littles and Jelly Beans through Amazon and California retailers in December 2025, particularly because she and her child have wheat allergies. She claims she paid a premium for products she otherwise would not have purchased. She seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the products during the proposed class period, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of express warranty. She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that United Pulse Trading deceptively markets its Veggipasta products as containing 24 grams of protein per 100-gram serving, even though the protein allegedly provides substantially less nutritional value than consumers would reasonably expect. According to the complaint, the lentil-based protein has a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) of approximately 0.54 to 0.63, meaning its quality-adjusted protein value is allegedly 40% to 50% lower than the advertised quantity. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant unlawfully omits the required protein Percent Daily Value from its Nutrition Facts panel. He claims he relied on the protein representations when purchasing the products in California and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known their actual nutritional value. He seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). He seeks damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sports Research deceptively markets its dietary supplement gummies as “Sugar-Free,” even though the products allegedly contain substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, with the products allegedly containing 8 to 13 grams per serving. Plaintiff further alleges that the ingredient lists omit the required disclosure identifying allulose as contributing sugar, making the challenged representations misleading. He alleges he relied on the “Sugar-Free” representation when purchasing Sports Research Vitamin C Gummies at Walmart in Chicago, Illinois, and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that SmartSweets deceptively markets its candy products as “Naturally Flavored” and containing “No Artificial Flavors,” even though the products allegedly contain artificially manufactured citric acid. According to the complaint, most commercially produced citric acid is derived through industrial fermentation using the fungus Aspergillus niger, rather than extracted naturally from citrus fruits. Plaintiff alleges that SmartSweets' representations mislead consumers into believing the products contain exclusively natural flavoring ingredients. Plaintiff further alleges they relied on these representations when purchasing Sweet Fish and a SmartSweets Variety Candy Pack through Amazon in December 2025 and February 2026 and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known the alleged truth. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims for common-law fraud and violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that UTZ Brands and UTZ Quality Foods deceptively market Boulder Canyon potato chips as being made entirely with avocado oil, even though the product allegedly contains cheaper vegetable seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of the product and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representation when purchasing a Boulder Canyon Chips Variety Pack at Whole Foods in San Mateo, California, in September 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Ken’s Foods deceptively markets its Ray’s sauces as containing “No Sugar Added,” even though the products allegedly contain added allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. The Original Barbecue Sauce allegedly contains two grams of allulose per serving, and the products are sold at a premium compared to conventional Sweet Baby Ray’s sauces. Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations when purchasing the products at Walmart, Safeway, and Fred Meyer in Oregon and Washington, D.C., and paid more than they otherwise would have paid. They seek to represent Oregon and District of Columbia consumer classes, asserting claims under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act. They seek actual, statutory, treble, and punitive damages where available, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Nature’s Way deceptively markets its dietary supplement gummies as “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain significant amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the second-listed ingredient and that the products contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, making the challenged representations false and misleading. She alleges she relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing Nature’s Way gummies at Walmart in Chicago in August 2024 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Goli Nutrition deceptively markets its dietary supplement gummies as containing “ZERO SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain significant amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that the Apple Cider Vinegar and Ashwagandha+ gummies contain approximately 2 grams of allulose per serving, while the Pre+Post+Probiotics gummies contain approximately 1 gram, exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. He alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing Goli Zero Sugar Apple Cider Vinegar Gummies at Walmart in Illinois in June 2025 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide, multistate, Illinois, and California consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, including California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Vive Organic deceptively markets its wellness shots as “Immunity Boost” and “Doctor Crafted,” misleading consumers into believing the products are scientifically proven to strengthen the immune system and were formulated by physicians with relevant medical expertise. According to the complaint, the claimed immunity-boosting benefits lack reliable scientific substantiation, and the individuals featured in the products’ marketing allegedly lack the specialized immunology expertise implied by the representations. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these claims when purchasing the products, including at Whole Foods Market in Brooklyn, New York, in 2026, and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent a New York consumer class, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive business practices and false advertising. He seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages where available, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dunkin’ Brands and Inspire Brands deceptively market their energy drinks as containing “Zero Sugar” and “Zero Grams of Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants intentionally concealed the products’ sugar content while charging a premium for beverages marketed as sugar-free. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the drinks at Dunkin’ locations in New York and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, corrective labeling, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Driscoll’s deceptively markets its conventional strawberries as safe, high-quality, and sustainably produced while failing to disclose the alleged presence of PFAS-related pesticides, commonly associated with “forever chemicals.” According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing reported in May 2026 detected twelve pesticide residues in conventional Driscoll’s strawberries, including eight characterized as PFAS-related or persistent fluorinated pesticides. Plaintiff alleges that these findings contradict Driscoll’s representations concerning its food safety practices and environmental responsibility. He further alleges he relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing the strawberries at grocery stores in New York and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chicago Candy Company deceptively markets its Hormbles Chormbles protein candy products as containing “0G SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the products contain more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving and violate federal nutrient-content labeling requirements. He further alleges he relied on the zero-sugar representation when purchasing a Hormbles Chormbles Salted Fudge Candy Bar in Huntington Park, California, in August 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Hero Labs deceptively markets its food products as containing “0G SUGAR,” even though they allegedly contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and therefore qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the identified products contain approximately one gram of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold of 0.5 grams for zero-sugar claims. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Hero Classic Burger Buns, Classic Hot Dog Buns, and Flour Tortillas at Jewel-Osco in Evanston, Illinois, in July 2024 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering eight states, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Unilever and Conopco deceptively market Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as being made with “100% Avocado Oil,” even though its oil composition allegedly does not consist exclusively of authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study identified widespread adulteration among avocado oil-labeled food products, including mayonnaise, raising concerns about substitution or blending with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges that the product’s labeling and ingredient list misleadingly suggest that avocado oil is its sole vegetable-oil base. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the mayonnaise at Target in Selden, New York, and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Luthman Backlund Foods deceptively markets Nick’s ice cream as containing “No Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 6.5 to 10 grams of added allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the products’ ingredient lists disclose allulose without adequately explaining its significance, while the front labels prominently emphasize the absence of added sugar. She further alleges she relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing Nick’s Vanilla Bean, Peanut Butter Cup, and Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream through FreshDirect in New York and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, New York, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, analogous consumer protection statutes across 20 states and the District of Columbia, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory and treble damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Heartland Consumer Products deceptively markets its Splenda Diabetic Nutrition Shakes as containing “0g No Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 5.5 to 6.5 grams of added allulose per bottle. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading, particularly for consumers managing diabetes. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing the Strawberry variety through Amazon in New York and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide, New York, and multistate consumer classes covering 20 states and the District of Columbia, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and treble damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Humm Kombucha deceptively markets its probiotic kombucha beverages as containing “ZERO SUGAR” and “0 GRAMS SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 10 grams of allulose per 12-ounce can. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading and allegedly exceeding the regulatory threshold for zero-sugar claims by approximately 20 times. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the Raspberry Lemonade variety for approximately $7.49 in August 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid as much, had he known its alleged sugar content. He seeks to represent nationwide and Oregon consumer classes, asserting claims under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks actual or statutory damages of at least $200 per Oregon class member, damages for breach of warranty, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and class certification. The complaint expressly excludes injunctive relief.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Hain Celestial Group deceptively markets its Garden Veggie Straws as “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL,” even though the product allegedly contains cheaper, undisclosed seed oils rather than authentic avocado oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of the product and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the product at Food 4 Less in Whittier, California, in August 2026 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification. The complaint currently seeks only public injunctive relief under the CLRA.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Chosen Foods deceptively markets its mayonnaise and salad dressings as “Made with 100% Pure Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed seed oils. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of four Chosen Foods products and found all samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing Chosen Foods Avocado Oil Mayo at Costco in Tucson, Arizona, in May 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and Arizona consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification. The complaint currently seeks injunctive relief under the CLRA, with damages potentially added following the statutory notice period.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that PIM Brands and Welch Foods deceptively market Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites as containing “Zero Sugar” and “No Preservatives,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose and citric acid. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, while citric acid functions as a preservative, making both representations misleading. Plaintiff alleges he relied on these claims when purchasing the products at Walmart and other retailers in California throughout 2025 and 2026, paying a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent California and multistate consumer classes, alleging violations of California’s food-labeling and consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Jackson’s Food Company deceptively markets its potato and sweet potato chips as “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL,” leading consumers to believe the products are made entirely with avocado oil, even though they allegedly contain cheaper seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each product and found all four samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the avocado-oil representation when purchasing Jackson’s Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips at Sprouts in Pomona, California, in May 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent a California consumer class and subclass, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Garza Food Ventures and PepsiCo deceptively market Siete potato and corn tortilla chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of each product and found their oil compositions inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when repeatedly purchasing Siete potato chips in New York and corn tortilla chips in California, paying a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide, New York, and California consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), and negligent misrepresentation. They seek actual, statutory, and treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Heartland Consumer Products deceptively markets Splenda Diabetes Care Shakes as containing “0g NO ADDED SUGARS,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 5.5 to 6.5 grams of added allulose per bottle. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce these claims by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. He further alleges he relied on the representations when purchasing a six-pack of Splenda Café Latte shakes through Walmart in May 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide, California, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Quest Nutrition deceptively markets its protein bars, cookies, candy, and baked goods as healthy, nutritious products made with “only quality ingredients,” despite containing erythritol, a sugar alcohol allegedly associated with increased cardiovascular risks. According to the complaint, scientific studies have linked erythritol consumption to increased platelet activity, blood clot formation, heart attacks, and strokes. Plaintiff alleges that Quest's health-focused advertising and failure to disclose these potential risks mislead consumers into believing the products are safer and healthier than they allegedly are. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing a Quest Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Protein Bar at Walmart in California in September 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and unjust enrichment. She seeks restitution, compensatory and statutory damages where available, injunctive relief requiring accurate marketing and disclosures, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that WK Kellogg deceptively markets its Special K cereals as containing “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” and “0g Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately four grams of added allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ principal sweetener and that its quantity exceeds the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims by approximately eight times. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the cereals in New York between July 2025 and August 2026 and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known they contained allulose. She seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Utz deceptively markets its Boulder Canyon potato chips as containing avocado oil, even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed seed oils. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study tested two production lots of the Classic Sea Salt variety and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges that the prominent “AVOCADO OIL” labeling and ingredient lists mislead consumers about the products’ actual oil composition. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the Classic Sea Salt chips at Costco locations in California on at least 23 occasions between March 2025 and August 2026 and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known the alleged truth. He seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. He seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.