The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during February 2025. Below is a summary of the plaintiff’s allegations. To request a copy of a particular complaint or for queries or further discussion, you’re welcome to reach out via email at [email protected].
1. Barrales v. New Chapter
This class action lawsuit alleges that New Chapter, Inc. misrepresented the dosage amounts of its dietary supplements. The complaint claims that the front labels on certain products, such as fiber and probiotic gummies, lead consumers to believe that each gummy or tablet contains the advertised dosage amount when, in fact, multiple gummies are required to reach the stated dose. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that New Chapter marketed two separate organic fiber gummy products—one for adults and one for children—when both had identical formulas. The plaintiff asserts that this mislabeling caused consumers to overpay and seeks damages for violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and other claims.
2. Bongiovi v. Hershey
In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that Hershey misled consumers by marketing its SkinnyPop Butter Popcorn as “Made with Real Butter” when the product actually contains only a small amount of real butter alongside other ingredients such as sunflower oil and whey. The lawsuit claims that consumers prefer real butter in their snacks and are willing to pay a premium for it. The plaintiff argues that Hershey’s misrepresentation constitutes false advertising and deceptive business practices, violating New York’s consumer protection laws.
3. Brearly v. Weis Markets
This class action lawsuit accuses Weis Markets of misleading consumers by claiming that its products are made with natural flavors when they actually contain artificial flavors and additives. The complaint highlights that consumer preferences have shifted toward natural ingredients and that Weis took advantage of this trend through deceptive labeling. The plaintiff seeks damages for violations of New York’s misbranding laws, as well as claims for false advertising and breach of warranty.
4. Cabrera v. Laura’s Original Boston Brownies
The plaintiff alleges that Laura’s Original Boston Brownies, operating under the Bhu Foods brand, falsely advertised its protein cookies by overstating their protein content. The lawsuit claims that the products list a higher percentage of the Recommended Daily Value of protein than they actually contain, misleading consumers who rely on accurate labeling for dietary purposes. The plaintiff seeks damages for false advertising, misbranding, and breach of warranty.
5. Cavallaro v. Angie’s Artisan Treats
This class action lawsuit alleges that Angie’s Artisan Treats misled consumers by labeling its packaged popcorn as being made with “real butter” when the product contains only minimal butter and other added ingredients. The complaint argues that consumers are misled into believing they are purchasing a high-quality, butter-rich product, when in reality, the butter content is negligible. The plaintiff claims that this misrepresentation violates consumer protection laws and seeks restitution and damages.
6. Daniel v. Eagle Family Foods
The plaintiff in this case claims that Eagle Family Foods falsely advertised its Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper products as “Made with Real Cheese” when the actual cheese content is less than 2%. The lawsuit alleges that the product packaging, which prominently displays cheesy pasta, misleads consumers into believing that the product contains a substantial amount of real cheese. The plaintiff argues that this deceptive marketing violates consumer protection laws and seeks damages for false advertising and misrepresentation.
7. Desir v. Maxi Canada
In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that Maxi Canada falsely marketed its Yummy Dino Buddies chicken nuggets as “100% All Natural” and containing “No Artificial Ingredients.” The complaint alleges that the products actually contain synthetic ingredients such as isolated soy protein and xanthan gum. The plaintiffs assert that they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known about these ingredients. They seek damages for deceptive advertising and violations of New York consumer protection laws.
8. Ebanks v. Hormel Food Sales
The plaintiff in this case alleges that Hormel Food Sales misled consumers by labeling its “Crunchy Corn Kernels” as “Mango Habanero” when the product does not contain real mango or habanero. Instead, the flavoring is derived from artificial and natural flavors rather than the advertised ingredients. The lawsuit argues that this deceptive labeling violates consumer protection laws, as consumers expect products to contain the ingredients highlighted on the packaging.
9. Gambino v. Ole Mexican Foods
This class action lawsuit claims that Ole Mexican Foods falsely advertised the dietary fiber, total carbohydrates, net carbohydrates, and calorie content of its Xtreme Wellness Tortilla Wraps. The plaintiff alleges that the nutritional labeling misrepresents the actual values, misleading consumers who purchase the wraps for health or dietary reasons. The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising, breach of warranty, and other claims under consumer protection laws.
10. Garo v. Pepsico
The plaintiff in this case accuses Pepsico, Unilever, and the Pepsi Lipton Partnership of falsely advertising Pure Leaf Tea as “Brewed in USA” when the tea used in the product is sourced from foreign countries. The lawsuit alleges that this misleading labeling takes advantage of consumers who prefer to support domestic products. The plaintiff seeks damages for false advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws.
11. Gonzalez v. Celtic Ocean International
The plaintiff alleges that Celtic Ocean International, LLC falsely advertised its Selina Naturally® Celtic Sea Salt® products as natural and healthy while they contained high levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and arsenic. The lawsuit claims that consumers were misled into believing they were purchasing a safe product and seeks damages for false advertising, consumer fraud, and deceptive business practices.
12. Kachuck v. Mission Produce
This class action lawsuit claims that Mission Produce, Calavo Growers, and Del Monte misled consumers by marketing their Mexican-grown avocados as sustainably and responsibly sourced. The plaintiffs, who are California avocado farmers, argue that these companies sourced avocados from deforested areas in Mexico, causing environmental destruction and creating unfair competition for California growers. The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.
13. Kachur v. Madhava Honey
The plaintiff alleges that Madhava Honey, Ltd. misled consumers by marketing its avocado and olive oils as “non-GMO” and “clean & simple,” despite all avocado oils being non-GMO by default. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the oils contained harmful levels of phthalates, which are known endocrine disruptors. The plaintiff seeks damages for deceptive marketing, false advertising, and consumer fraud.
14. Martin v. Nature’s Path Foods
This class action lawsuit accuses Nature’s Path Foods of misrepresenting the healthfulness of its Organic Toaster Pastries by implying they are nutritious despite containing between 33 and 38 grams of added sugar per serving. The plaintiff argues that consumers were misled into believing they were purchasing a healthy product and seeks damages for false advertising, consumer fraud, and misbranding.
15. McCoy v. McCormick
The plaintiff claims that McCormick & Company falsely marketed its French’s mustard products as “Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA” despite using foreign-sourced ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that this misrepresentation violates California’s consumer protection laws and seeks damages for false advertising, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty.
16. Melara v. PEScience
The lawsuit alleges that PEScience misrepresented the protein content of its Select Vegan Plant Protein powder by overstating the percent of Recommended Daily Value on the label. The plaintiff claims that this misrepresentation misled consumers into paying a premium for the product under false pretenses and seeks damages for false advertising and deceptive business practices.
17. Newman v. Cab Enterprises
The plaintiff accuses Cab Enterprises of misbranding and adulterating food products by using chemical preservatives while misleading consumers into believing the products were free of such additives. The lawsuit claims that consumers were deceived into thinking they were purchasing a healthier product and seeks damages for false advertising and consumer fraud.
18. Pantaleon v. Evercare
This class action lawsuit alleges that EverCare falsely marketed its Prime MD Ceylon Cinnamon Apple Cider Vinegar capsules as containing 500mg of apple cider vinegar with at least 4% acetic acid. However, lab tests revealed the product contained less than 2% acetic acid, making the advertised health benefits misleading. The plaintiff seeks damages for false advertising, consumer fraud, and breach of warranty.
19. Perkins v. PIM Brands
The plaintiff claims that PIM Brands falsely advertised its “Real Strawberry Fruit Bars” as being made with whole strawberries when, in reality, they contained a minimal amount of real fruit and were mostly composed of other ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that the misleading labeling led consumers to overpay for a product they believed was higher in fruit content and seeks damages for false advertising and deceptive business practices
20. Riggs-Bergesen v. Compana Pet Brands
The plaintiff alleges that Compana Pet Brands LLC and Premium Nutritional Products, Inc. falsely marketed their ZuPreem® pet food products as “natural,” despite containing synthetic ingredients such as pyridoxine hydrochloride, citric acid, and folic acid. The lawsuit claims that consumers paid a premium for products they believed to be free from artificial additives and seeks damages for false advertising, violations of New York’s consumer protection laws, and breach of express warranty.
21. Ringler v. The J.M. Smucker Company
The plaintiff claims that The J.M. Smucker Company falsely advertised its “Smucker’s Natural Fruit Spread” products as “natural” and “made with ingredients from natural sources” when they contained synthetic citric acid. The lawsuit argues that consumers were misled into believing the products were free of artificial ingredients, leading to claims of false advertising, consumer fraud, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws.
22. Robins v. Lemme
This class action lawsuit accuses Lemme Inc. of misleading consumers by marketing its “Lemme GLP-1 Daily” supplements as enhancing the body’s natural GLP-1 hormone production to reduce hunger. The lawsuit argues that the product, which contains lemon, orange, and saffron extracts, lacks scientific evidence to support its claims. The plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Yelp Law, asserting that Lemme capitalized on the popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs to deceive consumers.
23. Sepian v. Goya
The plaintiff alleges that Goya Foods, Inc. falsely labeled certain products as “Product of USA” without properly disclosing that they contained foreign-sourced ingredients. The lawsuit argues that consumers were deceived into believing they were purchasing domestically sourced products, violating California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.
24. Smith v. Nature’s Truth
The plaintiffs claim that Nature’s Truth Inc. misrepresented the acetic acid content of its “Triple Strength Apple Cider Vinegar” dietary supplements. The lawsuit alleges that the product contained significantly less acetic acid than required to qualify as true apple cider vinegar, rendering its advertised health benefits misleading. The plaintiffs seek damages for false advertising, breach of warranty, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws.
25. Stewart v. Nutramax
This lawsuit accuses Nutramax Laboratories Consumer Care, Inc. of falsely advertising its “Cosamin” joint health supplements as scientifically proven to promote joint comfort and protect cartilage. The plaintiff alleges that Nutramax misled consumers into believing the supplements provided effective relief from joint pain despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting these claims. The lawsuit seeks damages for false advertising and violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws.
26. Tovmasyan v. Target
The plaintiff alleges that Target Corporation falsely labeled its “Good & Gather” food products as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite the presence of citric acid, which functions as a preservative. The lawsuit argues that this misleading labeling allowed Target to charge a premium for products marketed as preservative-free. The plaintiff seeks damages for false advertising, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s consumer protection laws.
27. Vanacore v. Topco
The plaintiff accuses Topco Associates LLC of falsely marketing its food products as free of artificial preservatives when they contained chemical preservatives such as citric acid and potassium sorbate. The lawsuit claims that consumers paid a premium for what they believed to be preservative-free products and seeks damages for misbranding, deceptive advertising, and violations of New York’s consumer protection laws.
28. Young v. Haleon
The plaintiff alleges that Haleon US Inc. engaged in deceptive packaging practices by using oversized containers for its over-the-counter healthcare products, leading consumers to believe they were purchasing more product than was actually included. The lawsuit argues that this practice misled consumers, violated fair packaging regulations, and constituted false advertising under New York’s consumer protection laws.
