Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, October 2026

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Whole Earth Brands and Whole Earth Sweetener deceptively market their allulose-based sweeteners as containing “0g Sugar” and “Zero Sugar,” even though the products allegedly consist primarily or entirely of allulose. 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 that certain products contain approximately 8 grams of allulose per serving, substantially exceeding the regulatory threshold for zero-sugar claims. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing Whole Earth Stevia Leaf, Monk Fruit & Allulose Blend through Amazon in September 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 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 Dr. John’s Healthy Sweets deceptively markets its Sugar Free 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 qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California 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 declare zero grams of total and added sugars despite the alleged sugar content. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the products through Amazon in September 2026 for delivery to Los Angeles County and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He 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. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Genius Gourmet deceptively markets its Nut Roll Protein Bars as containing “0g Added Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain added allulose. 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 that the Vanilla Caramel Peanut variety contains nine grams of allulose per serving, despite its Nutrition Facts panel declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the Vanilla Caramel Peanut variety at Costco in Chicago, Illinois, in August 2025 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known the alleged truth. 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 actual, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Costco deceptively markets its annual memberships as providing access to ethically sourced products, despite allegedly failing to prevent child and forced labor within its supply chains. According to the complaint, Costco represents that it prohibits exploitative labor practices, monitors suppliers, maintains product traceability, and exercises extensive control over Kirkland Signature production. Plaintiffs contend these representations are misleading because Costco allegedly lacks adequate supply chain visibility and continues selling products associated with documented labor abuses, including cocoa, cashews, shrimp, dog food, and milk. Plaintiffs allege they purchased Costco memberships in Oregon and paid a premium for ethical sourcing assurances that Costco failed to deliver. They seek to represent an Oregon consumer class of membership purchasers and renewers, asserting claims under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. They seek actual, 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 Old School Labs deceptively markets its creatine supplements as specially formulated for women, despite allegedly containing no ingredients or formulations providing unique benefits to female consumers. According to the complaint, the products contain the same five grams of creatine monohydrate as the company's gender-neutral alternatives, while additional ingredients, including collagen and BCAAs, allegedly provide no gender-specific benefits. Plaintiff contends that the packaging and advertising exploit gender stereotypes to create a misleading impression of product differentiation. She alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Creatine Monohydrate for Women through Amazon in October or November 2024 and would not have purchased it had she known the alleged truth. She seeks to represent nationwide, California, Illinois, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under California and Illinois consumer protection statutes, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, treble, 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 WK Kellogg deceptively markets its Special K cereals as containing “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” and “0g ADDED SUGAR,” even though the products allegedly contain added allulose syrup. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling standards, with the Strawberry Crème variety containing four grams of allulose per serving and the Cinnamon variety containing three grams. Plaintiff alleges that the products’ Nutrition Facts panels reinforce the misleading representations by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. She further alleges she relied on these claims when purchasing the Strawberry Crème cereal at a supermarket in California in early 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), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Serene Herbs deceptively markets its Soursop Bitters products as “MADE IN USA,” even though they allegedly contain substantial foreign-sourced ingredients. According to the complaint, the company's own marketing acknowledges that the products are manufactured in the United States using globally sourced ingredients, including herbs from Ghana and the Caribbean. Plaintiff contends that the unqualified domestic-origin representation violates California's Made in USA labeling requirements and misleads consumers into believing the products are entirely or substantially American-made. He alleges he relied on this representation when purchasing Soursop Bitters in Buena Park, California, during summer 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. He seeks compensatory and statutory damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring accurate country-of-origin labeling, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Abbott Laboratories deceptively markets its Glucerna nutrition shakes as containing “1g TOTAL SUGARS,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 3.9 to 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 she relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing the Vanilla variety at CVS stores in New York and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She 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. 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 Blues Hog deceptively markets its Champions Blend Sugar Free BBQ Sauce as “Sugar Free,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose as its primary ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the product contains more than the permitted 0.5 grams of sugar per serving and that its Nutrition Facts panel reinforces the misleading claims by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. He further alleges he relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing the sauce at Publix in Florida, including a purchase in September 2026, and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He 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. He seeks actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Target deceptively markets its Up&Up Ashwagandha Gummies as containing 300 mg of ashwagandha, even though consumers must take two gummies to obtain the advertised dosage. According to the complaint, the prominent front-label representation leads consumers to believe each gummy contains 300 mg, when each allegedly provides only half that amount. Plaintiffs contend that Target's labeling misrepresents the product's potency and causes consumers to overpay for a supplement providing less ashwagandha per gummy than reasonably expected. They allege they relied on these representations when purchasing the product at Target stores in Encinitas and Bakersfield, California, in 2025. They seek 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). The complaint seeks injunctive relief only, including an order requiring Target to correct its labeling or clarify that the advertised dosage applies to two gummies, corrective advertising, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Ryl Company deceptively markets its iced teas as containing “0g SUGAR” and “ZERO ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose and synthetic or chemically manufactured ingredients. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, while ingredients such as ascorbic acid, malic acid, and citric acid allegedly contradict the artificial-ingredient claims. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing four Jolly Rancher-flavored Ryl iced teas at Target in Lakeland, Florida, in April 2026, paying a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent a Florida consumer class and two subclasses, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), including alleged violations of Florida food-labeling requirements, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Jackson’s Food Company deceptively markets its Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips as being made exclusively with avocado oil, even though the product allegedly contains cheaper, undisclosed vegetable or seed oils. 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 oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the chips through Instacart from Sprouts Farmers Market in California in July 2025 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She 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 and implied warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. She seeks compensatory 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 Blues Hog deceptively markets its Champions’ Blend Sugar Free BBQ Sauce as “SUGAR FREE,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representation false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the product’s first-listed ingredient and that its Nutrition Facts panel reinforces the misleading claim by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the sauce through Walmart.com and Amazon.com in April and June 2026 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 Chicago Candy Company deceptively markets its Hormbles Chormbles protein candy products as containing “0g Sugar,” even though they allegedly contain allulose as a principal sweetening ingredient. 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 claims when purchasing Peanut Butter and Milk Chocolate varieties at Vitamin Shoppe in Champaign, Illinois, in June and July 2026, paying approximately $3.99 per bar and a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, Illinois, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous consumer protection statutes across multiple states, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, enhanced and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged representations, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Costco deceptively markets its Kirkland Signature Hydration Electrolyte Drink Mix as “SUGAR-FREE,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their primary ingredient. 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 that the products’ Nutrition Facts panels reinforce these claims by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars, despite allegedly containing more than 0.5 grams of allulose per serving. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the variety pack at a Costco warehouse in Chicago, Illinois, in September 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Starbucks deceptively markets eight protein beverages as “Sugar-Free,” even though they allegedly contain approximately 13 to 21 grams of sugar per venti serving. According to the complaint, the beverages contain milk-derived lactose, a naturally occurring sugar, making the challenged product names inconsistent with federal sugar-free labeling requirements. Plaintiffs further allege that Starbucks fails to provide required calorie-related disclaimers and does not prominently disclose the beverages’ actual sugar content before purchase, including through its mobile application and third-party delivery platforms. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the representations when purchasing the beverages in California, New York, and Washington and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent a nationwide consumer class or, alternatively, state-specific classes, asserting claims under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. They seek damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged naming practices, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Mars deceptively markets its Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa, Brown & Red Rice product as containing a substantial amount of quinoa, even though quinoa allegedly represents less than 2% of its ingredients. According to the complaint, quinoa appears prominently as the first ingredient in the product name, creating the impression that it is a principal component, while the ingredient list identifies it as the fourth ingredient, after brown rice, flax seed, and sunflower oil. Plaintiff alleges that this representation misleads consumers seeking quinoa’s nutritional benefits and allows Defendants to charge a premium for a product primarily composed of less expensive grains. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the product in Santee, California, between December 2024 and January 2026. She seeks to represent a California consumer class, asserting claims under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). She seeks damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and marketing, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dunkin’ Brands and Inspire Brands deceptively market Dunkin’ Zero energy drinks as containing “zero sugar” and “0g of sugar,” even though the beverages allegedly contain approximately 9 grams of allulose per medium serving and 11 to 13 grams per large 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 she relied on these claims when repeatedly purchasing Dunkin’ Zero beverages at a drive-through restaurant in Chicago, Illinois, between March and September 2026, paying a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express warranty under Massachusetts law, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring corrective marketing and disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Chosen Foods deceptively markets its mayonnaise, dressings, and marinades as “Made With 100% Pure 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 of the four products and found all eight samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations when purchasing Chosen Foods products at Costco locations in California, including purchases in December 2025 and August 2026, and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek 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. They seek actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Snyder’s-Lance and The Campbell’s Company deceptively market Kettle Brand potato chips as “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL,” leading consumers to believe the products are made entirely with avocado oil, even though they allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed 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 she relied on these representations when purchasing the Sea Salt with a Hint of Pink Peppercorn variety at a Sunnyvale, California, retail store in September 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that CVS Health Corporation and CVS Pharmacy deceptively market their Well Market Watermelon Replenish Drink Mix as containing “ZERO SUGAR” and “Sugar Free,” even though the product allegedly contains allulose as its first-listed ingredient. 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 product's Supplement Facts panel reinforces these claims by declaring zero grams of total sugars, while its ingredient list identifies allulose. She further alleges she relied on the zero-sugar representations when purchasing the product at a CVS store in Fresno, California, in June 2025 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims for unjust enrichment and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief under the CLRA, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Primal Nutrition and The Kraft Heinz Company deceptively market Primal Kitchen mayonnaise, dressings, and marinades 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 of the three products and found all six samples compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. Plaintiff alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Primal Kitchen Real Mayonnaise Made With Avocado Oil from a third-party seller on July 9, 2026, 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 Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (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 individual personal injury lawsuit alleging that Defendants supplied and served Taco Bell food containing shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora during a 2026 multistate cyclosporiasis outbreak. According to the complaint, federal investigators traced the outbreak to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico, prompting a recall of iceberg lettuce distributed across multiple states. Plaintiff alleges he consumed four soft tacos and a grilled cheese burrito at a Taco Bell restaurant in North Royalton, Ohio, on July 3, 2026, and subsequently developed severe gastrointestinal symptoms, including persistent diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, and significant weight loss. He alleges he tested positive for Cyclospora, required medical treatment, and missed numerous days of work. Plaintiff asserts claims against all Defendants for negligence, strict product liability based on manufacturing defects and failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties. He seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost earnings, economic losses, physical pain and emotional distress, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that The Coca-Cola Company deceptively markets Minute Maid Fruit Punch as containing “100% Natural Flavors,” even though the beverage allegedly contains industrially manufactured citric acid. According to the complaint, the citric acid is produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing and functions as a flavoring ingredient by providing tartness, making the challenged representation false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the labeling when repeatedly purchasing the beverage at Walmart, Ralphs, Stop & Shop, and ShopRite locations in California and New York and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent California and New York consumer classes, asserting claims for breach of express warranty, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. They seek compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Utz Brands deceptively markets Boulder Canyon potato chips as cooked exclusively in avocado oil, even though the products allegedly contain cheaper refined seed oils. According to the complaint, a July 2026 UC Davis study found that Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Potato Chips had fatty acid and sterol profiles inconsistent with exclusive avocado oil use, suggesting substitution or dilution with other vegetable oils. The study did not test the challenged flavored varieties. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the avocado-oil representations when purchasing the products at Sprouts Farmers Market, Safeway, and Oliver’s Market in California and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment. They seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective ingredient disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that The LIV Group and Unilever deceptively market Liquid I.V. electrolyte drink mixes as “SUGAR-FREE,” even though the products allegedly contain allulose as their primary ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs further allege that the products contain at least 0.87 grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for sugar-free claims. Beyer alleges she relied on these representations when repeatedly purchasing Raspberry Lemonade products in California, while Himelspach alleges purchasing the same flavor at Costco in Washington in October 2025. Both claim they paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek to represent nationwide, California, and Washington consumer classes, asserting claims under California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. They seek actual, statutory, and treble damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrected labeling, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Brew Culture deceptively markets 28 of its beverages as “Sugar Free,” even though they allegedly contain significant amounts of sugar. According to the complaint, the company's own Nutrition Guide identifies sugar levels ranging from 2 to 163 grams per beverage, exceeding the federal threshold of 0.5 grams for sugar-free claims. Plaintiff alleges that sugar originates from ingredients such as dairy milk, sweetened matcha, chai, and lemonade bases, while drive-through menus fail to disclose these amounts. She further alleges she relied on the representation when purchasing a Sugar Free Strawberry Matcha in Algonquin, Illinois, in January 2026 and experienced a blood sugar spike after consumption. She seeks to represent nationwide, Illinois, and nine-state consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and common-law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages where available, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Lily’s Sweets deceptively markets its gummy candies as containing less than one gram of sugar and no added sugar, even though each bag allegedly contains 11 to 12 grams of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under applicable federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the second-listed ingredient and that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce the misleading claims by declaring less than one gram of total sugars and zero grams of added sugars. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Sour Gummy Worms and Gummy Bears near Algonquin, Illinois, in June 2026, paying approximately $3.00 and a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent nationwide, Illinois, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, analogous state consumer protection statutes, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, nominal, 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 North Course Brands deceptively markets its RxSUGAR organic syrups as containing “0 Sugar” and being “Sugar Free,” 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 Illinois labeling standards, with certain varieties containing up to 22 grams per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for zero-sugar claims. The complaint alleges that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce these representations by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. It further alleges that the consumer identified in the complaint's body relied on the zero-sugar representation when purchasing RxSUGAR Organic Pancake Syrup at Target in Chicago in June 2025 for approximately $14.99 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained allulose. The action 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. It seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Walmart deceptively markets its Great Value frozen shrimp products with inaccurate net-weight representations. According to the complaint, independent testing of ten shrimp packages found that, after thawing, draining, and removing excess moisture, the products contained approximately 4.4% to 11.67% less shrimp than advertised, resulting in overcharges of up to $1.65 per bag. Plaintiff alleges that Walmart improperly includes ice glazing or excess moisture in the advertised weight, contrary to FDA guidance requiring seafood net weights to exclude protective ice coatings. He further alleges he relied on the stated weights when repeatedly purchasing Great Value shrimp at Walmart in Chicago between October 2025 and May 2026 and would have paid less had he known the actual quantities. He seeks to represent an Illinois consumer class, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring product recalls and consumer refunds, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Munk Pack deceptively markets its protein bars as containing “1g Sugar,” even though the products allegedly contain approximately 11 grams of sugar per bar, including 10 grams of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the Nutrition Facts panels reinforce these claims by declaring “Total Sugars 1g” and “0g Added Sugars,” while separately listing 10 grams of allulose. She further alleges she relied on the sugar representation when purchasing a five-bar sampler pack through Amazon in May 2025 for $14.99 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 Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification, while reserving the right to pursue damages under the CLRA after satisfying statutory notice requirements.

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 substantial amounts of allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Massachusetts labeling regulations, with the products allegedly containing at least 0.5 grams per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold for zero-sugar claims. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ second-listed ingredient and that the labeling misleads consumers seeking sugar-free alternatives. He further alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites Mixed Fruit in Massachusetts in July 2026 and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. He seeks to represent a Massachusetts consumer class, asserting a claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A for unfair or deceptive business practices. He seeks actual and statutory damages, double or treble damages for alleged knowing or willful violations, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs 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 ten grams of added allulose per can. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiffs allege that allulose syrup is the second-listed ingredient and that the products’ Nutrition Facts panels reinforce the allegedly misleading claims by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. They further allege they relied on these representations when purchasing Blood Orange and Raspberry Lemonade varieties at Target and Walmart stores in Illinois and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. They seek 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. They seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Saraya USA deceptively markets Lakanto Simple Syrup products as containing “0g Total Sugar” and “No Sugar Added,” even though they allegedly contain approximately four grams of allulose per two-tablespoon serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff further alleges that allulose is the products’ second-listed ingredient, while their Nutrition Facts panels declare zero grams of total and added sugars. He alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing two bottles of Lakanto Original Simple Syrup through Amazon in June 2026 for $13.49 each and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had he known their alleged sugar content. He seeks to represent a California consumer class, 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. He seeks restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sprouts Farmers Market and SF Markets deceptively market their tortilla and potato chips as made entirely with avocado oil, even though the products allegedly contain cheaper, undisclosed 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 she relied on the avocado-oil representation when purchasing Sprouts Organic Sea Salt & A Hint of Lime Tortilla Chips in Huntington Beach, California, in February 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 Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this individual personal injury lawsuit alleging that Defendants supplied and sold Taco Bell meals containing shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora, causing her to develop cyclosporiasis during a 2026 multistate outbreak. According to the complaint, the FDA traced the outbreak to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico, prompting a voluntary recall in July 2026. Plaintiff alleges she consumed Taco Bell meals containing the affected lettuce on four occasions between July 2 and July 10, 2026, at a restaurant in Northwood, Ohio. She subsequently experienced severe diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and other gastrointestinal symptoms, with laboratory testing confirming cyclosporiasis on July 14, 2026. She alleges her illness required medical treatment, caused prolonged physical suffering, and resulted in approximately two weeks of missed work and lost wages. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability based on manufacturing defect and failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, medical expenses, lost earnings, litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Kroger Co. deceptively markets its Simple Truth Maple Flavored Syrup as containing “Zero Sugar” and “0g Added Sugar,” even though the product allegedly contains 22 grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the product’s first-listed and predominant ingredient, while its Nutrition Facts panel reinforces the allegedly misleading claims by declaring zero grams of total and added sugars. He further alleges he relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing the syrup in Illinois on October 2, 2026, 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 actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this individual personal injury lawsuit alleging that Defendants supplied and sold Taco Bell meals containing shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora, causing her to develop cyclosporiasis during a 2026 multistate outbreak. According to the complaint, the FDA traced the outbreak to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico, prompting a voluntary recall in July 2026. Plaintiff alleges she consumed Taco Bell meals containing the affected lettuce on four occasions between July 2 and July 10, 2026, at a restaurant in Northwood, Ohio. She subsequently experienced severe diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and other gastrointestinal symptoms, with laboratory testing confirming cyclosporiasis on July 14, 2026. She alleges her illness required medical treatment, caused prolonged physical suffering, and resulted in approximately two weeks of missed work and lost wages. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability based on manufacturing defect and failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, medical expenses, lost earnings, litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this consumer protection lawsuit alleging that Target deceptively markets its Good & Gather Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” even though the product allegedly contains nisin, an industrially manufactured antimicrobial preservative. According to the complaint, commercial nisin production involves controlled fermentation, chemical agents, and modified bacterial strains, making the ingredient artificial or synthetic rather than natural. Plaintiff alleges that nisin prevents bacterial growth and food deterioration, directly contradicting the product’s labeling. She further alleges she relied on the preservative-free representation when purchasing the product in New York within three years of filing the complaint and paid a premium over its approximate $3.99 price that she otherwise would not have paid. The complaint asserts claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 201. Plaintiff also identifies a potential New York consumer class but has not formally sought class certification. She seeks actual damages reflecting the alleged price premium, discretionary attorneys’ fees, and class certification if subsequently pursued, expressly excluding statutory penalties and punitive damages.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this individual personal injury lawsuit alleging that Defendants supplied and sold Taco Bell meals containing shredded iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora, causing him to develop cyclosporiasis during a 2026 multistate outbreak. According to the complaint, the FDA traced the outbreak to lettuce supplied by Taylor Farms de Mexico, prompting a voluntary recall in July 2026. Plaintiff alleges he consumed Taco Bell meals containing the affected lettuce at restaurants in Ohio on June 30 and July 17, 2026. He subsequently developed severe and persistent diarrhea, nausea, and loss of appetite, with laboratory testing confirming a Cyclospora infection on August 21, 2026. Although antibiotic treatment improved his symptoms, he alleges continued gastrointestinal discomfort and approximately 20 pounds of weight loss. Plaintiff contends Defendants failed to implement adequate food safety measures, properly evaluate suppliers, prevent contamination, and provide timely warnings or recalls. He asserts claims for negligence, strict products liability based on manufacturing defect and failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, medical expenses, lost earnings, emotional distress damages, interest, litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Only What You Need and Simply Good Foods deceptively market OWYN Vanilla Plant Protein drinks with inaccurate sodium-content labeling. According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing of twelve samples detected between 419 mg and 439 mg of sodium per serving, approximately 55% to 63% more than the advertised 270 mg. Plaintiff alleges that these discrepancies exceed the 20% regulatory tolerance for declared sodium content, rendering the products misbranded under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. He further alleges he relied on the nutritional representations when repeatedly purchasing the product in California, including at retailers in Marina del Rey, paying approximately $4.49 per drink because he believed it contained less sodium than competing alternatives. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and breach of express and implied warranties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling or reformulation, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Pyure Brands deceptively markets its organic sweeteners as containing “0 Sugar” and being “Sugar-Free,” 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 Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that certain varieties contain up to 22 grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the regulatory threshold of 0.5 grams for sugar-free claims. She further alleges she relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing Pyure Organic Sweetener at Walmart in Brookfield, Illinois, in October 2024 for approximately $10.99 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained 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, treble 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 HUM Nutrition deceptively markets its Flatter Me Fiber GLP-1 Booster as a clinically supported supplement capable of doubling GLP-1 hormone levels and reducing appetite. According to the complaint, HUM capitalizes on consumer familiarity with prescription GLP-1 medications, including Ozempic and Wegovy, to promote an ordinary prebiotic fiber supplement at a premium price. Plaintiffs allege that the company's claims rely on a single industry-funded study involving 19 adults that did not establish a twofold increase in GLP-1 levels or effects comparable to prescription medications. Gonzalez alleges he purchased the product through HUM's website in Florida in June 2026, while Fosudo purchased it through Amazon in Maryland in March 2026. Both allegedly relied on the challenged representations and paid more than they otherwise would have. They seek to represent nationwide, Florida, and Maryland consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection laws, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. They seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Codeage deceptively markets its Miracle Candy Sugar-Free Soft Chews as containing no sugar, even though the products allegedly contain approximately five 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 “Sugar-Free” and “0g Sugar” representations false and misleading. Plaintiff further alleges that allulose is the products’ second-most predominant ingredient and that the amount present substantially exceeds the regulatory threshold of 0.5 grams per serving for sugar-free claims. He alleges he relied on these representations when purchasing the Salted Caramel variety through Amazon in October 2026 and would not have purchased the product, or would have paid substantially less, had he known its alleged sugar content. He seeks to represent a California consumer class, 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. He seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that North Course Brands deceptively markets its RxSugar organic syrups as containing “0 Sugar” and being “Sugar Free,” 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 Illinois labeling standards, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that certain varieties contain up to 22 grams of allulose per serving, substantially exceeding the regulatory threshold of 0.5 grams for zero-sugar claims. She further alleges she relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing RxSugar Organic Pancake Syrup at Target in Chicago, Illinois, on June 18, 2025, for approximately $14.99 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known it contained 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 where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that KIND deceptively markets its ZEROg Added Sugar Nut Bars as containing no added 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, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the products contain approximately four grams of added allulose per serving in certain varieties, while their packaging prominently advertises “ZEROg ADDED SUGAR” and only one or two grams of total sugar. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing KIND Dark Chocolate Nuts & Sea Salt Bars at Target in Costa Mesa, California, on August 27, 2026, for approximately $6.79 and paid 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 where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, 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 substantial amounts 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 that certain products contain up to 22 grams of allulose per serving, while their packaging fails to disclose the quantity of allulose and prominently advertises zero added sugar. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Duncan Hines Keto-Friendly Walnut Fudge Brownie Mix at Ralphs in Long Beach, California, in October 2023 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 Consumers 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 requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Walmart deceptively markets its Great Value Original Microwaveable Macaroni & Cheese cups as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” even though the products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid. According to the complaint, citric acid is industrially produced through microbial fermentation and functions as a preservative by slowing the oxidation and deterioration of milkfat in the cheese powder. Plaintiff alleges that Walmart prominently repeats the challenged representation on the outer packaging and individual cups while disclosing citric acid only in the ingredient list. She further alleges she relied on the representation when purchasing the product at a Walmart store in St. Louis County, Missouri, in October 2025, paying approximately $3.99 per multipack, and would not have purchased it, or would have paid as much, had she known the alleged truth. She seeks to represent a Missouri consumer class, asserting claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), breach of warranty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory damages limited to the alleged price premium, attorneys’ fees, and class certification, expressly excluding punitive damages, restitution of the full purchase price, and injunctive or declaratory relief.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Defendants deceptively market Drumstick frozen dairy dessert cones as premium ice cream, despite reformulating the product to replace portions of its milkfat with cheaper vegetable oils, including coconut, palm, and soybean oils. According to the complaint, the reformulated product no longer meets the FDA’s standard of identity for ice cream under 21 C.F.R. § 135.110. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants concealed this change through inconspicuous “frozen dairy dessert” labeling while continuing to promote Drumstick as ice cream through packaging, websites, advertising, social media, and retailer listings. They further allege they repeatedly purchased Drumstick products in Florida believing they were buying genuine ice cream and paid a premium they otherwise would not have paid. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and Florida consumer classes, asserting claims for unjust enrichment, violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek actual damages reflecting the alleged price premium, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising and labeling, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that McDonald’s deceptively markets certain McCafé beverages as “Sugar Free,” even though they allegedly contain approximately 2 to 18 grams of naturally occurring lactose sugar per serving from whole milk. According to the complaint, lactose is a disaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements limiting sugar-free claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Plaintiff also alleges that McDonald’s fails to provide required calorie-related disclaimers and does not adequately disclose sugar content on restaurant menus or ordering kiosks. He alleges he relied on the “Sugar Free” representation when purchasing an Iced Sugar Free Vanilla Latte at a McDonald’s restaurant in the Bronx, New York, in September 2026, paying approximately $4 for a beverage containing at least seven grams of lactose. He seeks to represent nationwide, New York, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. He seeks compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sports Research Corporation 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 qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and California labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that allulose is the products’ second-listed ingredient, indicating its significant presence and allegedly violating federal requirements limiting sugar-free claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. He further alleges he relied on the “Sugar-Free” representation when purchasing Sports Research Vitamin C 500mg Gummies in California and paid a premium he otherwise would not have paid. 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 compensatory and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Swerve and Heartland Food Products Group deceptively market Swerve Granular Zero Calorie Sweetener as containing “Zero Sugar,” even though the product allegedly contains two grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations, making the challenged representations false and misleading. Plaintiff alleges that the allulose content exceeds the regulatory threshold of 0.5 grams for sugar-free claims and that the product's Nutrition Facts panel reinforces the allegedly misleading labeling by declaring zero grams of sugar. He further alleges he relied on the “Zero Sugar” representation when purchasing the product at Target on July 17, 2026, 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 actual, 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 Diva Fam deceptively markets its TrueSeaMoss Electrolytes Powder Packets as containing no sugar, even though the product contains allulose as its primary ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations, making the challenged representations allegedly false and misleading. Plaintiff further alleges that the product fails to disclose the quantity of allulose per serving, preventing consumers from assessing compliance with regulatory requirements for zero-sugar claims and understanding potential gastrointestinal effects associated with its consumption. She alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the Banana & Strawberry flavor at Target in Rosemont, Illinois, in December 2025 and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had she known its composition. 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 actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Del Sol Company deceptively markets its Briannas salad dressings as “Sugar-Free,” even though the products contain allulose. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide and qualifies as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the products fail to include the required asterisk and explanatory statement identifying allulose as an ingredient that adds sugar, rendering the unqualified “Sugar-Free” representations misleading and the products improperly labeled. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing Briannas Sugar-Free Blush Wine Vinaigrette at a Jewel grocery store in Stickney, 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 actual, 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 Mary Mack’s deceptively markets its Scoot Frozen Lemonade beverages as containing no artificial flavors, even though the products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid. According to the complaint, citric acid functions as a flavoring agent by enhancing the beverages’ characteristic fruit flavors, and its industrial production through fermentation and chemical processing allegedly makes it an artificial ingredient under applicable federal and California labeling standards. Plaintiff alleges that the challenged representations mislead consumers seeking beverages made without artificial flavoring agents. She further alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing an Original Lemon 6 Pack at a Target store in Los Angeles, California, in July 2026 and paid a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent similarly situated consumers, asserting claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. She seeks monetary relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring changes to the products’ labeling, advertising, or formulation, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Ryl Company LLC deceptively markets its iced tea beverages as containing zero sugar, despite allegedly using four to six grams of allulose per can. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements limiting zero-sugar claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Plaintiff further alleges that the products’ Nutrition Facts panels incorrectly declare zero grams of total sugar and that the ingredient lists fail to adequately disclose allulose as a sugar. She alleges she regularly purchased the beverages through Amazon, most recently purchasing three packages of the Half & Half flavor for approximately $57.35 in October 2026, relying on the zero-sugar representations and paying a premium she otherwise would not have paid. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and common-law fraud. She seeks compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that B&G Foods deceptively labels its Weber seasoning products with inflated serving counts. According to the complaint, Weber Original Rub advertises approximately 123 servings per container, while Weber KC BBQ Rub advertises approximately 117 servings, each based on a serving size of one teaspoon (3.5 grams). However, independent laboratory testing conducted in 2021 and 2025 allegedly revealed that the products contain substantially fewer servings because the actual weight of each teaspoon exceeds the labeled amount. Testing indicated shortages of at least 11.12% for Original Rub and 10.21% for KC BBQ Rub, with later testing showing even greater discrepancies. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the products at retail locations in New York, including Walmart, relying on the advertised serving counts and paying more than the products were worth. She seeks to represent a class of New York purchasers, asserting claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Jam Foods deceptively labels its JAMBAR Organic Artisan Energy Bars with understated sodium content. According to the complaint, the product originally declared 37mg of sodium per bar, later revised to 40mg, despite independent laboratory testing allegedly revealing sodium levels ranging from approximately 47.10mg to 60mg per bar under the original labeling and 51.90mg to 58.50mg under the revised labeling. Plaintiff alleges these discrepancies exceed the 20% tolerance permitted under applicable federal and California food labeling regulations. He further alleges that Defendants continued selling the products without adequately correcting the labeling after receiving notice of the alleged violations. Plaintiff claims he repeatedly purchased the bars in Los Angeles County, relying on their stated sodium content because he sought a low-sodium energy bar, and paid approximately $3 per bar. He seeks to represent California purchasers, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and intentional misrepresentation. He seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Target Corporation deceptively markets its Up & Up Hydration Supplement Powder products as “Sugar-Free” and “Zero Sugar,” even though they contain allulose as their primary ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under applicable federal and Illinois labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing sugar-free claims. Plaintiff further alleges that the products’ Nutrition Facts panels incorrectly declare zero grams of total and added sugars without disclosing the quantity of allulose present. She alleges she relied on these representations when purchasing the Lemon Lime flavor at a Target store in Rockford, Illinois, on October 16, 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, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that PB2 Foods deceptively markets its Natural Creamy Peanut Butter Spread as containing zero added sugar, despite intentionally adding allulose as a sweetener. According to the complaint, allulose qualifies as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing no-added-sugar claims. Plaintiff also alleges that the product fails to display required calorie-related disclaimers, despite containing 180 calories per serving, and does not disclose the quantity of allulose present. She alleges she relied on the “ZERO ADDED SUGAR” representation when purchasing the product at a Walmart store in Chicago, Illinois, in October 2025, paying a premium she otherwise would not have paid. She seeks to represent Illinois and multistate consumer classes covering ten 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, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Fire & Smoke Society deceptively packages its Big Dipper Au Jus Mix seasoning in oversized, opaque bags containing substantial empty space. According to the complaint, the packaging is less than half full, creating the misleading impression that consumers are purchasing significantly more product than they actually receive. Plaintiff alleges that the empty space serves no legitimate functional purpose, such as protecting the contents, accommodating machinery, or preventing damage during transportation, and therefore violates federal and California packaging requirements. He claims he purchased the product in Los Angeles County, relying on the package size as an indication of its contents, and would not have purchased it or paid the same price had he known about the excessive empty space. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims involving common law fraud, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and breach of express and implied warranties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Spanglish Asadero and Kinder’s Holdings deceptively package their Barbacoa seasoning in oversized, opaque bags containing substantial empty space. According to the complaint, the packages are less than half full, creating the misleading impression that consumers are receiving significantly more seasoning than they actually purchase. Plaintiff alleges that the empty space serves no legitimate functional purpose, such as protecting the contents, accommodating packaging machinery, or preventing damage during transportation, and therefore violates federal and California packaging requirements. He claims he purchased the product in Los Angeles County, relying on the package size as an indication of its contents, and would not have purchased it or paid the same price had he known about the excessive empty space. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims involving common law fraud, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and breach of express and implied warranties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Peak Foods deceptively markets its truwhip Zero Sugar whipped topping as sugar-free despite containing allulose. According to the complaint, allulose qualifies as sugar under federal regulations because of its chemical structure, making the product’s “ZERO SUGAR” and “0g SUGAR” representations misleading and unlawful. Plaintiff further alleges that the product contains more than 0.5 grams of allulose per serving, exceeding the threshold permitted for sugar-free claims, and that the labeling fails to include required qualifying disclosures. She claims she purchased the product at a supermarket in Petaluma, California, in October 2026, relying on its sugar-free representations, and would not have purchased it or paid the same price had she known its actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent a California consumer class and subclass, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and 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 and dessert cups as containing “0g Added Sugar,” despite intentionally adding allulose as a sweetener. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing no-added-sugar claims. Plaintiff alleges that she regularly purchased the Chocolate Chip Cookie Mix and Classic Yellow Cake Mix at a Walmart in Shorewood, Illinois, for approximately $5.97 each, relying on the labeling because avoiding added sugar was important for her household. She claims she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had she known they contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide, multistate, and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under various state consumer protection statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, enhanced, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dunkin’ Brands and Inspire Brands deceptively market their Dunkin’ Zero energy beverages as containing “Zero Sugar” or “0g of Sugar,” despite using allulose as a primary sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing sugar-free claims. Plaintiff alleges that medium beverages contain approximately 8 to 10 grams of allulose, while large beverages contain approximately 11 to 13 grams. She claims she purchased several Dunkin’ Zero flavors at restaurants in Orland Park and Chicago, Illinois, relying on the zero-sugar representations and paying a premium for products she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide, Illinois, and multistate consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Nature’s Truth deceptively markets its Magnesium Glycinate Gummies as providing 200 mg of magnesium per serving, when the product allegedly contains only approximately 22 mg of magnesium, or approximately 11% of the advertised amount. According to the complaint, the misleading representations appear on product packaging, advertising, and online retail listings, causing consumers to believe they are purchasing a higher-dose magnesium supplement. Plaintiffs also cite an April 2026 National Advertising Division (NAD) decision recommending that Nature’s Truth discontinue or modify the challenged claims. Renee Mazza alleges she purchased the product online in New York in January 2026 for approximately $12.82, while Sheri Knox purchased it at CVS in Massachusetts in May 2026 for approximately $19.49. Both claim they paid a premium for a product worth less than represented. Plaintiffs seek to represent New York and Massachusetts consumer classes, asserting violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. They seek actual, statutory, and multiple damages where authorized, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that WK Kellogg Sales LLC deceptively markets its Special K Fruit & Yogurt cereal by prominently emphasizing fruit and yogurt on its packaging, creating the misleading impression that these are significant ingredients in the product. According to the complaint, the ingredient list identifies dried apples, nonfat milk, and nonfat yogurt powder among ingredients present at 2% or less, contradicting the impression created by the product’s name, descriptions, and imagery. Plaintiff alleges he purchased a 12.6-ounce box at a ShopRite in Garwood, New Jersey, on October 9, 2026, for approximately $4.59, relying on the challenged representations. He claims he would not have purchased the cereal had he known the actual ingredient composition and suffered an economic loss because the product was worth less than represented. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New Jersey consumers, asserting a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). He seeks ascertainable losses, treble damages, equitable and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Ken’s Foods deceptively markets several Ray’s sauces and marinades as “No Sugar Added,” despite allegedly adding allulose during manufacturing. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide that qualifies as sugar under federal food-labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing no-added-sugar claims. Plaintiff alleges she purchased Ray’s No Sugar Added Sweet & Smoky Barbecue Sauce at a retailer in Ceres, California, around June 2025, believing it contained no added sugar. She claims she would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less had she known it contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent a California consumer class and subclass, asserting violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), along with claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. She seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Ryse Up Sports Nutrition deceptively packages its Clear Protein – Country Time Lemonade drink mix in oversized, opaque pouches containing substantial empty space. According to the complaint, the packaging is less than half full, creating the misleading impression that consumers are purchasing significantly more product than they actually receive. Plaintiff alleges that the empty space serves no legitimate functional purpose, such as protecting the contents, accommodating packaging machinery, or preventing product settling during transportation, and therefore violates federal and California packaging requirements. She claims she purchased the product in Los Angeles County, relying on the package size as an indication of its contents, and would not have purchased it or paid the same price had she known about the excessive empty space. Plaintiff also identifies herself as a consumer rights tester. She seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express and implied warranties, and common law fraud. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that CVS Pharmacy deceptively markets its Well Market Replenish Drink Mix products as “Zero Sugar,” despite containing allulose as their predominant ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements limiting zero-sugar claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Plaintiff also alleges that CVS misleadingly describes the allulose content as a “dietarily insignificant amount of sugar” while declaring zero grams of total sugars on the Supplement Facts panel. She alleges she purchased the products approximately monthly at a CVS store in Chicago between June and September 2026, paying approximately $8.69 per six-count box. Because she has Type 2 diabetes, she specifically relied on the sugar-free representations when making her purchases and claims she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had she known their actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide, multistate, and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual, statutory, enhanced, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Gelson’s Markets deceptively labels its Korean-Style Sesame Ginger Turkey Jerky as containing 340 mg of sodium per serving, despite laboratory testing of twelve samples allegedly revealing sodium levels ranging from 431 mg to 546 mg per serving. According to the complaint, these discrepancies exceed the 20% tolerance permitted under applicable food labeling regulations, rendering the product misbranded and unlawful to sell under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Plaintiff alleges he repeatedly purchased the product at Gelson’s locations in Santa Monica, California, paying approximately $10.99 per package because he relied on its stated sodium content and believed it offered a healthier alternative to competing products. He claims he would not have purchased the product had he known its actual sodium levels. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and for breach of express and implied warranties. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Kroger Co. and Ralphs Grocery Company deceptively label their Smoked Turkey Snack Sticks as containing 390 mg of sodium per serving, despite independent laboratory testing of twenty samples allegedly revealing sodium levels ranging from 494 mg to 540 mg per serving. According to the complaint, these discrepancies exceed the 20% tolerance permitted under applicable food labeling regulations, rendering the product misbranded and unlawful to sell under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Plaintiff alleges she repeatedly purchased the product at retail locations in Los Angeles, California, paying approximately $4.49 per package because she relied on its stated sodium content and believed it contained less sodium than competing products. She claims she would not have purchased the product had she known its actual sodium levels. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and for breach of express and implied warranties. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, product recalls, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Glanbia Performance Nutrition deceptively markets its Optimum Nutrition Serious Mass weight-gainer supplements as premium-quality, safe, and suitable for regular consumption without disclosing the presence or potential presence of cadmium and inorganic arsenic. According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing of the Chocolate Peanut Butter flavor detected approximately 6 µg/kg of cadmium and 8 µg/kg of inorganic arsenic, both classified as human carcinogens. Plaintiff alleges that these undisclosed heavy metals pose potential health risks, particularly because the products are marketed for frequent, high-volume consumption. He claims he purchased Serious Mass products at least five times through Amazon, GNC's website, and New York retail stores, most recently purchasing the Chocolate Peanut Butter flavor in June 2026. He alleges he would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had the contamination risks been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks to represent New York consumers, asserting violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. He seeks actual, statutory, and treble damages where authorized, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that US Health & Wellbeing deceptively markets its SmartyPants Kids Zero Sugar Multi & Omegas gummies as containing “Zero Sugar,” despite including allulose as the second ingredient by weight. According to the complaint, allulose is classified as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, and the product allegedly contains approximately 1.5 grams per serving, exceeding the 0.5-gram threshold permitted for zero-sugar claims. Plaintiff argues that the labeling is particularly misleading to parents seeking sugar-free supplements for their children. He alleges that he purchased the product multiple times over the past three years at Costco locations in Fresno, California, relying on the zero-sugar representation and paying a premium for a product he otherwise would not have purchased or would have purchased on different terms. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers, asserting claims for breach of express warranty and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that General Mills deceptively markets its Yoplait Enjoy ZERO yogurt products as containing “0g Added Sugar,” despite including allulose as an ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is classified as a sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representation misleading because consumers reasonably interpret it to mean that no sugar ingredients were added during manufacturing. Plaintiff specifically challenges the added-sugar representation rather than a “Sugar Free” or “Zero Sugar” claim. He alleges that he purchased two Yoplait Enjoy ZERO Blueberry Yogurts through Target on September 27, 2026, for approximately $1.58 each, relying on the labeling. He claims he would have purchased fewer products, selected an alternative, or paid less had he known the yogurt contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Clean Simple Eats deceptively markets its protein products as containing “Nothing Artificial,” despite allegedly including artificial or industrially processed ingredients. According to the complaint, the products contain citric acid and/or stevia leaf extract, which plaintiff claims contradict the prominent representations on their packaging and advertising. Plaintiff alleges that consumers reasonably interpret these claims to mean the products contain no artificial ingredients and are willing to pay a premium for that assurance. She purchased Clean Simple Eats Protein Powder Pink Burst at a Target store in Contra Costa County, California, around June 2026, relying on the challenged labeling. She claims she would not have purchased the product or would have paid substantially less had she known its alleged true composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and California consumer classes, asserting violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring changes to labeling or business practices, applicable penalties, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Celsius deceptively markets its energy beverages and powdered drink mixes as accelerating metabolism and burning body fat, creating the misleading impression that consuming the products alone produces meaningful weight-loss benefits. According to the complaint, Celsius relies on company-funded scientific studies that primarily demonstrate temporary metabolic effects rather than sustained fat loss. Plaintiff also alleges that Celsius conceals the limitations of these studies and places qualifying disclosures in small print on the back of its packaging. Nielsen claims she purchased multiple CELSIUS products from Amazon, Target, 7-Eleven, Costco, and Fred Meyer between December 2024 and September 2026, relying on the challenged representations and paying a premium for products she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent Washington consumers who purchased the products from October 26, 2022, through trial, asserting violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and fraudulent concealment under Washington law. Plaintiff seeks actual, treble, and punitive damages where available, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Siete Foods and its parent company, PepsiCo, deceptively market their tortilla and potato chips as made exclusively with avocado oil, despite allegedly containing undisclosed, lower-cost vegetable or seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 University of California, Davis study found that oil extracted from two production lots of the challenged products was compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Plaintiffs allege that the prominent “Made With Avocado Oil” representations, reinforced by ingredient lists identifying avocado oil as the only oil, mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing healthier, premium products. Azizah Ali alleges she repeatedly purchased Siete Maíz Corn Tortilla Chips in California, while Shahayra Roy purchased Siete Kettle Cooked Potato Chips in New York. Both claim they relied on the labeling and paid a premium for products they otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide, California, and New York consumer classes, asserting violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and negligent misrepresentation. They seek actual, statutory, and treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Hain Celestial Group deceptively markets its Sensible Portions snack products as made exclusively with avocado oil, despite allegedly containing cheaper seed oils. According to the complaint, a 2026 University of California, Davis study analyzed two production lots of Sensible Portions Garden Veggie Straws Made with Avocado Oil Sea Salt and found both compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Plaintiff alleges that the findings indicate substitution or dilution with seed oils and that other similarly labeled Sensible Portions products are affected. She claims she purchased three varieties at a Target store in Valencia, California, between January and September 2026, relying on the avocado oil representations and paying a premium for products she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. Plaintiff seeks to represent a California consumer class and subclass, asserting violations of 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. She seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition deceptively markets its Plant-Based Lean Body protein shakes as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners,” despite using stevia extract as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, commercially produced stevia extract undergoes extensive industrial processing and purification, resulting in highly concentrated steviol glycosides that Plaintiff argues should be classified as artificial sweeteners rather than natural ingredients. Plaintiff alleges that the labeling misleads health-conscious consumers seeking products free from artificial sweeteners and allows Labrada to charge a premium for products that do not meet consumers’ expectations. She claims she purchased the products approximately four times in California during February and March 2025, relying on the challenged representations, and would not have purchased them or would have paid less had she known their actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the products during the applicable limitations period, asserting violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of express warranty. She seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Primal Nutrition deceptively markets its Primal Kitchen Italian Dressing & Marinade with the representation “Made with Avocado Oil,” leading consumers to believe avocado oil is the product’s sole oil ingredient. According to the complaint, a 2026 peer-reviewed study conducted by researchers affiliated with the University of California, Davis, tested two separate lots of the product and found fatty acid and sterol profiles inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, allegedly indicating dilution or substitution with cheaper seed oils. Plaintiff alleges he purchased the product twice at a Whole Foods Market in Burbank, California, in May and August 2026, relying on its avocado oil labeling and paying a premium for a product he otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the applicable limitations period, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Ryl Company deceptively marketed its Morgan Wallen Sweet Tea as containing “Zero Sugar,” despite using allulose as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representation misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing zero-sugar claims. Plaintiff alleges he purchased the product at a retailer in Stockton, California, around January 2026, relying on its zero-sugar labeling and paying a premium for a beverage he otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. Although Defendant allegedly discontinued the challenged labeling, Plaintiff argues that the company could resume using it and that previously labeled products may remain available. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the applicable limitations period, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this representative enforcement action alleging that Bolton US, Inc. violated California’s Proposition 65 by manufacturing, importing, selling, and distributing tuna products containing cadmium without providing legally required warnings to consumers. According to the complaint, cadmium is a chemical identified by California as causing cancer and reproductive or developmental toxicity, and consumers are allegedly exposed through direct ingestion of the products. Plaintiff claims that Bolton knew or should have known about the presence of cadmium and failed to provide adequate warnings despite receiving a statutory 60-Day Notice of Violation. The complaint further alleges that the violations continued after the notice and that public enforcement agencies did not initiate and diligently prosecute an enforcement action. Unlike a consumer class action, this lawsuit is brought in the public interest under Proposition 65. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for violation of California Health and Safety Code § 25249.6 and seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation, alleging a minimum of $1 million in penalties, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring compliant warnings, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Target Corporation deceptively markets its up&up electrolyte drink mixes as “Sugar-Free,” despite containing allulose, a monosaccharide that Plaintiff argues qualifies as sugar under federal food labeling regulations. According to the complaint, the products contain more than 0.5 grams of allulose per serving, allegedly violating FDA requirements governing sugar-free nutrient content claims and rendering the products misbranded under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the White Peach flavor at a Target store in Canoga Park, California, around August 2026, relying on its sugar-free labeling and paying a premium for a product she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the products during the applicable limitations period, asserting claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, nominal, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Peak Foods deceptively markets its Truwhip Zero Sugar Whipped Topping as containing no sugar, despite using allulose as a prominent ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose qualifies as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the product’s “Zero Sugar” and “0g Sugar” representations misleading and allegedly inconsistent with FDA requirements governing sugar-free claims. Plaintiff further alleges that the product’s Nutrition Facts panel declares zero grams of total and added sugars without adequately disclosing its allulose content. Ortega, an Illinois resident, alleges she purchased the product at a Publix grocery store in Florida, relying on its zero-sugar representations and paying a premium for a product she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent Illinois consumers and a multistate consumer subclass, asserting claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), analogous state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages where permitted, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its protein cereals, granola, and protein treats as containing zero total or added sugars, despite using allulose as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose qualifies as sugar under federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations misleading and allegedly rendering the products misbranded. Plaintiff specifically identifies Magic Protein Treats minis in Chocolate Peanut Butter flavor, which lists allulose as its third ingredient while displaying “0g Total Sugars” on the packaging. Trout alleges she purchased an eight-count package at Target in Florida on August 30, 2026, relying on the sugar-related representations and paying a premium for a product she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent nationwide and Florida consumer classes covering purchases made during the preceding four years, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages where permitted, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Sunbeam Products and Newell Brands deceptively package their Crockpot Savory Pot Roast Seasoning Mix in oversized containers containing substantial nonfunctional slack-fill. According to the complaint, the product occupies only a fraction of the packaging, allegedly less than half its capacity, creating the misleading impression that consumers are receiving more seasoning mix than the package actually contains. Plaintiff argues that the empty space serves no legitimate manufacturing, transportation, or product-protection purpose and violates California's packaging and consumer protection laws. Hernandez alleges he purchased the product in California within the preceding year, relying on the package's size and appearance to assess its contents, and would not have purchased it or would have paid less had he known the actual quantity. He seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the product during the preceding six years, asserting claims for common law fraud and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), as well as breach of implied merchantability and express warranty. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, destruction of misleading packaging, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Lewis Bakeries deceptively markets its keto and protein baked goods as containing “0g Sugar,” despite using allulose as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal and Florida labeling standards, making the challenged representations misleading and allegedly inconsistent with FDA requirements governing sugar-free claims. Plaintiff specifically identifies the Hawaiian Keto Burger Buns, which allegedly contain two grams of allulose per bun while displaying “0g Sugar” on the packaging and declaring zero grams of total and added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel. Skwarlo alleges she regularly purchased the products over the preceding year, including a purchase at Walmart on September 13, 2026, relying on the zero-sugar representations and paying a premium for products she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent nationwide and Florida consumer classes covering purchases during the preceding four years, asserting claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Florida’s false and misleading advertising statute, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages where permitted, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Target Corporation deceptively markets its Market Pantry and Good & Gather macaroni and cheese products as containing no preservatives or artificial preservatives, despite including ingredients that allegedly function as preservatives. According to the complaint, citric acid, lactic acid powder, and sodium phosphate help prevent microbial growth, maintain product stability, and extend shelf life, contradicting the challenged labeling representations. Plaintiff further alleges that Target's Good & Gather branding and references to organic ingredients reinforce consumers' expectations that the products contain no preservatives. Vaughan claims she purchased the products for approximately three years, ending around fall 2025, primarily buying Good & Gather White Cheddar and Shells & White Cheddar varieties at stores near her home in Westchester County, New York. She alleges she relied on the preservative-free representations and would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had she known their actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and New York consumer classes, asserting violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Walmart deceptively markets its Great Value Stevia Sweeteners as being made with stevia extract, despite primarily relying on erythritol and other ingredients for their composition and sweetness. According to independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Great Value No Calorie Stevia Packets (80 Count) contain approximately 94.44% erythritol, while the Great Value No Calorie Stevia Sweetener Sugar Substitute (9.8 oz) contains approximately 59.12% erythritol. Plaintiff also alleges that Walmart fails to adequately disclose the products’ predominant erythritol content, which she associates with potential cardiovascular and digestive health risks. Winter claims she purchased the products approximately every one to two months over three years at Walmart stores in Rohnert Park, California, most frequently purchasing the 200-count packets for approximately $11. She alleges she relied on the stevia representations and would not have purchased the products on the same terms had she known their actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the products during the preceding four years, asserting violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, and quasi-contract. She seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Codeage deceptively markets its Miracle Candy products as “Sugar Free” and containing “0 Sugar,” despite using allulose as the second ingredient by weight. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and inconsistent with FDA requirements governing zero-sugar claims. Plaintiff also alleges that Codeage improperly declares zero grams of total sugars on its Nutrition Facts panels and fails to adequately disclose the products’ actual sugar content. Gutierrez claims she purchased the Mixed Berry flavor at a Walmart store in Rockford, Illinois, on approximately January 8, 2026, for $29.99, relying on its sugar-free representations. She alleges she would not have purchased the product or would have paid less had she known it contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent Illinois consumers and consumers in nine additional states, asserting claims under state consumer protection statutes, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and unjust enrichment. She seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Magic Spoon deceptively markets its Fruity Protein Cereal as containing zero sugar, despite including four grams of allulose per serving. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and allegedly inconsistent with FDA requirements governing zero-sugar claims. Plaintiff further alleges that Magic Spoon acknowledges allulose as a type of sugar on the packaging while simultaneously declaring zero grams of sugar on the front label and Nutrition Facts panel. Heidger claims she purchased the product at a Target store in Arnold, Missouri, around April 15, 2026, for approximately $8.99, relying on its zero-sugar representations. She alleges she would have paid substantially less had she known the product contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent Missouri consumers who purchased the Fruity cereal during the preceding five years, asserting claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory damages limited to the alleged price premium, restitution of that premium, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification. Plaintiff expressly does not seek punitive damages, injunctive relief, or a refund of the full purchase price.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Jocko Fuel deceptively markets its protein shake beverages as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners,” despite using monk fruit extract as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, although monk fruit originates from a natural plant source, the extract undergoes extensive industrial processing, including chemical solvent extraction, resin filtration, and purification, allegedly transforming it into an artificial sweetener. Plaintiff argues that these manufacturing processes contradict the products’ labeling and mislead consumers seeking natural, minimally processed ingredients. Corriere alleges he purchased several Jocko products in California, including Chocolate and Strawberry Jocko Mölk Protein Shakes at a Vitamin Shoppe store in San Jose on December 7, 2023, relying on the artificial-sweetener-free representations. He claims he would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had he known their alleged composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased similarly labeled Jocko beverages during the applicable limitations period, asserting violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of express warranty. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Linus Technology and Linus Technology Mergersub deceptively market their David Protein Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk Flavored Bar as containing zero sugar, despite using allulose as a sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, the product prominently advertises “28g Protein | 150 Calories | 0g Sugar,” while its Nutrition Facts panel declares zero total and added sugars. Plaintiff alleges that allulose constitutes sugar under federal labeling regulations and that the product contains more than the 0.5-gram threshold permitted for zero-sugar claims. Wallace claims he purchased the product at a Target store in St. Louis County, Missouri, around August 1, 2026, paying approximately $13.99 and relying on its sugar-free representations. He alleges he would have paid substantially less had he known the product contained allulose. Plaintiff seeks to represent Missouri consumers who purchased this specific product during the applicable class period, asserting claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). He seeks compensatory damages and restitution limited to the alleged price premium, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification. Plaintiff expressly does not seek punitive damages, injunctive relief, or a refund of the full purchase price.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The J.M. Smucker Company and Big Heart Pet deceptively package their Canine Carry Outs Beef Flavor dog treats in oversized bags containing substantial nonfunctional slack-fill. According to the complaint, the product occupies less than half of the packaging's capacity, creating the misleading impression that consumers are receiving more dog treats than the package actually contains. Plaintiff alleges that the empty space serves no legitimate manufacturing, transportation, or product-protection purpose and violates California's packaging and consumer protection laws. Moore claims she purchased the products multiple times in Los Angeles County, California, relying on the packaging's size and appearance to assess the quantity of treats inside. She alleges she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had she known the actual contents. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the products during the preceding six years, asserting claims for common law fraud and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), along with breach of express and implied warranties. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, destruction of misleading packaging, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this consumer protection lawsuit alleging that Reed’s deceptively markets its Zero Sugar Real Ginger Ale as containing “Nothing Artificial,” despite including citric acid allegedly produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing. According to the complaint, commercially manufactured citric acid involves genetically modified microorganisms, synthetic compounds, and chemical reactions, making it inconsistent with consumers’ expectations of natural ingredients. Plaintiff alleges that Reed’s labeling misleads consumers seeking beverages free from artificial additives and allows the company to charge a premium. Ripa claims she purchased the product at New York retailers within the three years preceding the complaint, paying approximately $4.39 and relying on the challenged representations. She alleges she would have paid less had she known the product contained manufactured citric acid. Plaintiff asserts violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 201(1). She also identifies a potential class of New York consumers who purchased the product for personal or household use, although class certification has not yet been requested. Plaintiff seeks actual damages limited to the alleged price premium, discretionary attorneys’ fees, and potential class certification. She expressly excludes punitive damages, statutory penalties, and recovery of the full purchase price.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Awakened Foods and I Won Nutrition deceptively market IWON Organics protein snacks with prominent protein-content claims while failing to disclose the quality-adjusted protein Percent Daily Value required under federal and California food-labeling regulations. According to the complaint, the products' Nutrition Facts panels omit the corrected %DV calculated using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), preventing consumers from accurately assessing the nutritional value of the advertised protein. Plaintiff further alleges that the products provide less usable protein than consumers reasonably expect from the labeling. Yuryeva claims she purchased Sour Cream & Onion Protein Crisps at a Whole Foods Market in Los Angeles around March 2026 for approximately $5, relying on the “15G Protein Per Bag” representation and paying a premium for a product she otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for. She seeks to represent California consumers who purchased similarly labeled IWON products, asserting violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages where permitted, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Dunkin’ Brands and Inspire Brands deceptively market their Dunkin’ Zero energy beverages as containing “Zero Sugar” or “0g of Sugar,” despite using allulose as a primary sweetening ingredient. According to the complaint, allulose is a monosaccharide classified as sugar under federal labeling regulations, making the challenged representations misleading and allegedly inconsistent with FDA requirements limiting zero-sugar claims to products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. Plaintiff further alleges that Dunkin’s nutritional information incorrectly declares zero grams of total and added sugars while failing to adequately disclose the beverages’ allulose content. Kaye claims she purchased Dunkin’ Zero beverages approximately two to three times per week at New York locations beginning in March 2026, most recently on October 1, 2026. She alleges she relied on the zero-sugar representations because she sought to limit her sugar intake and would not have purchased the beverages or would have paid less had she known their actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent New York consumers who purchased the beverages during the applicable limitations period, asserting violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. She seeks actual, statutory, and treble damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and class certification.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that The Clorox Company and Soy Vay Enterprises deceptively market their SOY VAY marinades and sauces as containing “No Preservatives,” despite listing acetic acid among their ingredients. According to the complaint, acetic acid lowers the products’ pH, inhibits microbial growth, and extends shelf life, making the preservative-free representation misleading under California food labeling laws. Plaintiff alleges that the ingredient does not qualify for the regulatory exclusion applicable to vinegar because it is separately identified as acetic acid. Elmarouk claims he purchased a 22-ounce bottle of SOY VAY Hoisin Garlic Teriyaki Marinade & Sauce in Contra Costa County, California, on approximately August 27, 2026, for $5.99, relying on the preservative-free representation. He alleges he would not have purchased the product or would have paid less had he known its actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent California consumers who purchased the challenged products during the applicable class period, asserting violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. He seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Summary: Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that Siete Family Foods and PepsiCo deceptively market their tortilla and potato chips as “Made with Avocado Oil,” despite allegedly containing cheaper, undisclosed seed oils such as canola, corn, soybean, or sunflower oil. According to the complaint, a July 2026 University of California, Davis study tested two production lots of each challenged product and found their fatty acid and plant sterol profiles inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Plaintiff alleges that the products' ingredient lists identify avocado oil as the only oil, misleading consumers seeking alternatives to seed oils and inducing them to pay a premium. Wilson claims she purchased Siete Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips on multiple occasions, including April 14, 2025, from a Woodman's Market in Lakemoor, Illinois, relying on the avocado oil representation. She alleges she would not have purchased the product or would have paid less had she known its actual composition. Plaintiff seeks to represent nationwide and Illinois consumer classes, asserting claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. She seeks class certification, actual and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.