The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits filed in December 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].
What Is a Class Action?
A class action is a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of people (a “class”) who have suffered similar harm from the same defendant. Instead of many individuals filing separate cases, one or more plaintiffs act as class representatives. This allows courts to address widespread harm more efficiently and ensures consistent results. In consumer protection cases—like the food and beverage filings we’ve reviewed—class actions often target misleading labels, false advertising, or deceptive marketing practices.
1. Del Pizzo v. Topco Associates LLC
Plaintiff: Regina Del Pizzo
Defendant: Topco Associates LLC
Product Focus: TopCare Fiber Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Topco misbrands and deceptively markets its TopCare Fiber Gummies by prominently claiming “5 g of fiber per serving” on the front label, while the Supplement Facts panel reveals that a serving consists of two gummies, and the bottle contains 45 servings, not 90. According to the complaint, consumers reasonably believe that each gummy delivers 5 grams of fiber, or that the bottle provides 90 servings, when in reality each gummy contains only half the represented fiber amount, requiring two gummies to obtain the stated 5 grams. The suit claims this labeling fails to disclose the true quantity of fiber per gummy and misrepresents the net quantity of contents.
The complaint asserts that the product is misbranded under New York’s Agriculture & Markets Law because the front label does not adequately communicate: (1) that two gummies are needed per serving, and (2) that the bottle provides only forty-five servings of fiber, not ninety. Plaintiff alleges that Topco’s labeling departs from industry standards and common consumer expectations, citing competitor products that clearly disclose nutrient amounts per gummy and total servings on the front. Plaintiff claims she relied on the representation when purchasing the product for approximately $13.99 and paid a price premium based on inaccurate nutrient and quantity information. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349–350 and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring accurate serving-size and nutrient disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
2. Breary, Motter & Nebel v. ByHeart, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Rasselyn Breary, Breanna Motter, and Allison Nebel
Defendant: ByHeart, Inc.
Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart marketed and sold its Whole Nutrition Infant Formula while failing to disclose that the product contained, or was at significant risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum. The complaint cites public health findings from early November 2025, including confirmation by the California Department of Public Health and testing conducted by IEH Laboratories that detected C. botulinum in cans of ByHeart formula. The document includes a product image (page 3) showing that no contamination warning appeared anywhere on the packaging.
Plaintiffs claim that ByHeart’s marketing presented the product as safe, wholesome, and suitable for infants, while omitting material information about contamination risks. The complaint asserts that ByHeart’s recall was insufficient, confusing, and designed to minimize refunds—requiring receipts, limiting return locations, and burdening consumers who purchased formula across multiple retailers. Plaintiffs allege they purchased the formula without knowledge of contamination, paid a price premium, and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain because the product was allegedly unsafe or worthless. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349–350, Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful safety disclosures and adequate recall procedures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any further relief the Court deems proper.
3. Livingston v. Naked Whey Inc. d/b/a Naked Nutrition
Plaintiff: Maria Livingston
Defendant: Naked Whey Inc. d/b/a Naked Nutrition
Product Focus: Naked Shake, Naked Mass, and Naked Pea Protein Products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Naked Nutrition falsely markets its protein powders as pure, clean, premium products free of harmful additives, while independent laboratory testing detected dangerously high levels of lead in the products. According to the complaint, scientific testing by Consumer Reports found that a single serving of Vegan Naked Mass Gainer contains 7.7 micrograms of lead—approximately 15 times more than California’s Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL). Additional testing performed by an FDA-accredited lab using ICP-MS confirmed substantial lead content across Naked Shake and Naked Pea varieties.
Plaintiff claims Naked Nutrition prominently advertises its products with statements such as “NAKED,” “PREMIUM,” “VEGAN,” “ONLY 3 INGREDIENTS,” “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS,” “NO ADDITIVES,” and “NOTHING TO HIDE.” Product images included in the complaint (pages 7–9) show these claims on labels and marketing materials. Plaintiff alleges these representations mislead consumers into believing the supplements contain no contaminants and are subject to rigorous purity and safety testing. Instead, the complaint asserts that the products contain lead at levels known to cause harmful health effects, including neurological and cardiovascular harm.
Plaintiff states she purchased Naked Shake Chocolate Vegan Protein in February and March 2025, relying on the purity claims and unaware of the lead content. Causes of action include violations of the California UCL, California FAL, CLRA, breach of express warranty, and quasi-contract, alleging that Naked Nutrition profited from misleading consumers into paying a price premium for unsafe products.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and contamination disclosure, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court finds just and proper.
4. Walker v. Kettle & Fire, Inc.
Plaintiff: Lauren Walker
Defendant: Kettle & Fire, Inc.
Product Focus: Kettle & Fire Bone Broth Products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Kettle & Fire falsely and misleadingly represents the amount and quality of protein in its bone broth products by prominently advertising 17–19 grams of protein per serving on front labels and Nutrition Facts Panels. According to the complaint, Kettle & Fire calculates protein content using the Kjeldahl Nitrogen method, which measures total nitrogen but does not account for protein quality or digestibility, resulting in inflated protein values that consumers’ bodies cannot actually use. Plaintiff asserts that FDA regulations require manufacturers making protein claims to calculate and disclose the “corrected amount of protein per serving” using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) method, which reflects both quantity and quality of protein.
The complaint alleges that when the products are tested using PDCAAS, they provide 0% of the daily value of usable protein, meaning the protein is nutritionally negligible despite the prominent claims. Plaintiff contends that Kettle & Fire failed to disclose the corrected protein amount or corrected %DV, rendering the labels misleading and misbranded under federal and New York law. Plaintiff claims she relied on the protein claims when purchasing the products in New York, paid a price premium for what she believed were high-protein foods, and would not have purchased them had she known the protein was of low quality and not nutritionally available. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive practices and consumer harm.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein and %DV disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
5. Rachwal et al. v. ByHeart, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Kaileigh Rachwal, Amber Stuart, Samantha De Oliveria, and Kristina Torres (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated)
Defendant: ByHeart, Inc.
Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula and Anywhere Packs
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart falsely and misleadingly marketed its infant formula products as containing only “clean ingredients,” being thoroughly tested for hundreds of contaminants, and posing no contamination risk, while omitting that the products contained, or were at significant risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum. The complaint highlights front-label claims such as “Certified Clean Ingredients,” “No GMO,” “No Corn Syrup or Maltodextrin,” and representations that the products were tested for more than 400–700 contaminants, creating the impression of exceptional safety and purity. Plaintiffs allege these representations led reasonable consumers to believe the formula was safe for infants and free from dangerous bacteria.
According to the complaint, between August and November 2025, the FDA and state health authorities identified multiple cases of infant botulism linked to ByHeart formula, including laboratory confirmation of C. botulinum in unopened cans. Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart failed to disclose this risk on product packaging or in marketing materials prior to the recall and continued to promote the products as safe. The lawsuit further alleges that ByHeart’s recall process was confusing, restrictive, and inadequate, requiring proof of purchase and limiting refunds, leaving many consumers uncompensated after discarding recalled formula. Plaintiffs claim they paid a price premium based on ByHeart’s safety representations and suffered economic loss when the products were recalled and rendered unusable. Causes of action include violations of New York GBL §§ 349–350, Connecticut CUTPA, California UCL, FAL, and CLRA, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful safety disclosures and recall practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
6. Gelber v. The J.M. Smucker Company
Plaintiff: Benjamin Gelber
Defendant: The J.M. Smucker Company
Product Focus: Smucker’s Natural Concord Grape Fruit Spread
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that The J.M. Smucker Company falsely and misleadingly markets its Smucker’s Natural Concord Grape Fruit Spread as “Natural” and “Made With Ingredients from Natural Sources,” despite the product containing citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as a chemical, non-natural, and industrially manufactured ingredient. The complaint includes product images showing the front-label “Natural” branding alongside the ingredient list on the back, which discloses citric acid in fine print. Plaintiff asserts that reasonable consumers understand “natural” foods to contain only ingredients derived directly from nature with minimal processing and no synthetic substances.
According to the complaint, modern citric acid is not derived from citrus fruits but is commercially produced using carbohydrate-rich substrates (often genetically modified corn) that are fermented with Aspergillus niger (black mold) and subjected to multiple chemical processing steps. Plaintiff alleges that this process renders citric acid synthetic and inconsistent with consumer expectations of “natural” foods. Plaintiff claims he purchased the product in New York between December 2022 and September 2025, relied on the natural-label representations, and paid a price premium for a product he would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, had he known it contained chemically processed ingredients. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful “natural” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
7. Tal et al. v. Huel Inc.
Plaintiffs: Ben Tal, Liam Traynor, Jordan Ancel, David Rosen, Nicholas Tinkle, Amadeo Baltazar, David Raymond, Jeffrey Lin, Jonathan Latane, Timothy Kaiser, Joseph Hsu, and Victor Torres-Velez (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated)
Defendant: Huel Inc.
Product Focus: Huel Black Edition High-Protein Meal Replacement Powder
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that Huel falsely and misleadingly markets its Huel Black Edition product as a safe, healthy, and premium meal replacement while failing to disclose that the product contains dangerous and elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. According to the complaint, Huel promotes the product with claims such as “nutritionally complete,” “science-backed,” “rigorously tested,” and “meets the highest quality standards,” leading consumers to believe the product is free from harmful contaminants. Plaintiffs assert that these representations were false and misleading because Huel Black contains lead and cadmium at levels experts warn against consuming—particularly given Huel’s recommendation that the product be consumed daily, sometimes multiple times per day.
The complaint relies heavily on Consumer Reports testing published in October 2025, which identified Huel Black as one of only two protein products tested that contained lead at levels high enough for Consumer Reports to advise consumers to limit or avoid consumption. Testing allegedly found that a single serving of Huel Black contained up to 6.31 micrograms of lead, exceeding California’s Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Level and far surpassing health-based guidelines for daily exposure. Plaintiffs further allege that Huel did not adequately test for heavy metals, failed to disclose their presence on packaging or Nutrition Facts labels, and continued to market the product as suitable for children, pregnant individuals, and daily use. Plaintiffs claim they paid a price premium based on Huel’s safety and quality claims and would not have purchased the product had they known of the heavy-metal contamination. Causes of action include violations of New York Agriculture & Markets Law §§ 199-a, New York GBL §§ 349–350, California UCL, FAL, and CLRA, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring accurate safety disclosures and testing practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
8. DeHerrera v. Garden of Life, LLC
Plaintiff: Anne-Marie DeHerrera
Defendant: Garden of Life, LLC
Product Focus: Garden of Life Sport Organic Plant-Based Protein
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Garden of Life falsely and misleadingly markets its Sport Organic Plant-Based Protein products as clean, safe, and suitable for daily consumption, while failing to disclose that the products contain dangerously high levels of lead, a toxic heavy metal. The complaint states that Garden of Life promotes the product as “rigorously tested for banned substances,” “trusted by athletes who refuse to compromise on ingredients,” and appropriate for athletes and active adults seeking clean nutrition. These representations allegedly created the impression that the product was free from harmful contaminants.
According to the complaint, independent testing reported by Consumer Reports found that a single serving of the product contained approximately 7.26 micrograms of lead, which is nearly four times Consumer Reports’ recommended daily exposure limit. Consumer Reports allegedly advised consumers to limit intake to one serving per week due to the elevated lead levels. Plaintiff asserts that despite these risks, Garden of Life failed to include any warning on the product packaging or marketing materials and continued to promote the product as safe for daily or near-daily use. Plaintiff claims she purchased and consumed the product regularly, relied on Garden of Life’s safety representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased the product had she known it contained unsafe levels of lead. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment, based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding product safety.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of heavy-metal content and corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
9. Caruso v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Plaintiff: Alexandria Caruso
Defendant: Colgate-Palmolive Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Hello Products LLC
Product Focus: Hello Kids Fluoride Toothpaste
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Colgate-Palmolive deceptively markets its Hello Kids Fluoride Toothpaste products in a manner that encourages unsafe ingestion of fluoride by young children, contrary to FDA, CDC, ADA, and AAP guidance. According to the complaint, the products are marketed with candy-like flavors, bright colors, cartoon imagery, and playful language such as “tastes magical,” “no brainer,” and “naturally friendly,” which allegedly cause children to view the toothpaste as edible and encourage swallowing rather than spitting. The packaging and advertising allegedly depict full strips of toothpaste on children’s toothbrushes, creating the impression that using large amounts is safe, even though professional guidelines recommend only a “smear” or “pea-sized” amount for young children.
Plaintiff further alleges that Colgate minimizes or obscures required fluoride warnings by placing them in small, inconspicuous text, while giving greater prominence to marketing claims and imagery that imply safety and ingestibility. The complaint cites extensive scientific literature and public-health findings linking excessive fluoride ingestion in early childhood to dental fluorosis, gastrointestinal distress, and potential neurodevelopmental risks. Plaintiff claims she relied on the product’s packaging and marketing when allowing her child to use the toothpaste, resulting in overuse and economic injury because the product allegedly delivers fewer safe brushings per tube than represented. Causes of action include violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and related consumer-protection claims, asserting that the products are misleadingly packaged and marketed in violation of federal and state law.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective packaging and advertising, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
10. Parashos v. Once Upon a Farm
Plaintiff: Alexa Parashos
Defendant: Once Upon a Farm, a Delaware corporation
Product Focus: Once Upon a Farm “Wild Rumpus Avocado ‘Fruit & Veggie Blend’” refrigerated pouch
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Once Upon a Farm falsely and misleadingly markets its Wild Rumpus Avocado pouch as a “Fruit & Veggie Blend” and as being “made with real, organic fruits & veggies,” when, in fact, the product contains no vegetables at all. According to the complaint, the ingredient list shows that the pouch contains pineapple, banana, apple, avocado (classified by the FDA as a fruit), mint (an herb), and lemon juice, but no ingredients that qualify as vegetables under FDA classifications. The front of the pouch prominently displays “Fruit & Veggie Blend” in bold green lettering, which Plaintiff alleges is designed to lead reasonable consumers—especially parents—to believe the product contains vegetables.
The complaint emphasizes that vegetables are nutritionally important for children and that parents actively seek out foods containing vegetables for their children’s diets. Plaintiff alleges that Once Upon a Farm intentionally targeted parents by exploiting this expectation, charging a price premium for a product falsely represented as containing vegetables. Plaintiff states she purchased multiple Wild Rumpus pouches from Target and Amazon in late 2024, relying on the veggie-related representations, and would not have purchased the product—or would have paid less—had she known it contained no vegetables. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief prohibiting the deceptive “Fruit & Veggie Blend” labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
11. Velez v. Lidl US LLC
Plaintiff: Wendy Velez
Defendant: Lidl US LLC
Product Focus: Lidl “Original Flavor” Macaroni & Cheese
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Lidl falsely and misleadingly markets its Original Flavor Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite the ingredient list disclosing citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as a chemical, non-natural ingredient that functions as a preservative. The complaint includes images of the product packaging showing the prominent “No Artificial Preservatives” front-label claim alongside ingredient panels listing citric acid in fine print. Plaintiff asserts that reasonable consumers understand “no artificial preservatives” to mean the absence of chemically manufactured substances used to extend shelf life or prevent spoilage.
The complaint devotes extensive detail to the industrial production and functional role of citric acid, alleging it is commercially manufactured using carbohydrate substrates fermented with Aspergillus niger (black mold) and refined through chemical processes. Plaintiff further alleges that citric acid performs multiple preservative-related functions in shelf-stable cheese products, including acidification, microbial inhibition, pH buffering, antioxidant effects, emulsification, anti-caking, and shelf-life extension. According to Plaintiff, these functions directly contradict Lidl’s labeling claims and render the product misbranded. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York between December 2022 and September 2025, relied on the labeling, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it contained chemical preservatives. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
12. Sepulveda & Castañeda v. ByHeart, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Victor Sepulveda and Jessica Castañeda
Defendant: ByHeart, Inc.
Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula and Anywhere Packs
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart deceptively manufactured, marketed, and sold its infant formula without disclosing that the products contained, or were at significant risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that causes infant botulism. The complaint states that ByHeart promoted its formula as organic, containing “certified clean ingredients,” and suitable for infants with sensitive stomachs, while omitting any warning on the packaging about botulism risk. Plaintiffs allege that consumers reasonably relied on these representations and believed the products were safe for infant consumption.
According to the complaint, federal and state health authorities linked multiple cases of infant botulism to ByHeart products in late 2025, prompting a nationwide recall. Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart’s recall was limited, confusing, and designed to restrict refunds, requiring proof of purchase, retention of products, and directing many consumers back to retailers that could not process refunds. The complaint further alleges that ByHeart issued inconsistent public statements minimizing the risk, despite laboratory confirmation of C. botulinum in its products. Plaintiffs claim they paid a price premium for formula that was ultimately unsafe, unusable, and had to be discarded. Causes of action include violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking recovery for economic losses and deceptive omissions.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, actual, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief requiring accurate safety disclosures and recall practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
13. T.F. v. The Plant Program, Inc. d/b/a New Brew Kratom
Plaintiff: T.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Defendant: The Plant Program, Inc. d/b/a New Brew Kratom
Product Focus: New Brew Kratom- and Kava-infused seltzer beverages
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that New Brew deceptively markets and sells kratom- and kava-infused seltzer beverages as safe, natural, and non-addictive alternatives to alcohol, while failing to disclose that the products contain addictive, opioid-like substances capable of causing chemical dependence, severe withdrawal symptoms, and serious adverse health effects. According to the complaint, New Brew products contain kratom (mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine) and kava, both of which interact with opioid and GABA receptors in the brain and can produce opioid-like effects, including euphoria, sedation, tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal.
The complaint alleges that New Brew’s marketing—including product packaging, website statements, and FAQs—misrepresents the beverages as “habit forming” at most, rather than addictive, and encourages consumption as part of a healthy lifestyle, including before workouts or for relaxation. Plaintiff asserts that New Brew intentionally downplays or omits material information about the risks of addiction, withdrawal, hallucinations, seizures, liver damage, and other adverse effects associated with kratom and kava use. Plaintiff alleges he purchased and consumed New Brew beverages in California beginning in October 2023, relied on the wellness-focused representations, and developed a dependence that led to escalating consumption, severe withdrawal symptoms, and the need for addiction treatment.
Plaintiff claims he would not have purchased or consumed the beverages had he known of their addictive nature and health risks. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), alleging that Defendant’s deceptive marketing caused consumers to pay a price premium and suffer economic and physical harm.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring truthful risk disclosures and corrective marketing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
14. Henninger v. Naturecom, Inc.
Plaintiff: Steven Henninger
Defendant: Naturecom, Inc. d/b/a Nutiva and Does 1–100
Product Focus: Nutiva Organic Rice Protein Powder
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Naturecom falsely and misleadingly markets its Nutiva Organic Rice Protein Powder as containing 30 grams of protein per serving, when the product allegedly delivers far less nutritionally usable protein than represented. The complaint explains that Naturecom calculates protein content using total nitrogen measurements, but fails to account for protein quality and digestibility, as required by FDA regulations when protein claims are made. According to Plaintiff, rice protein is an incomplete protein with a low Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), meaning a substantial portion of the labeled protein cannot be effectively used by the human body.
Plaintiff alleges that FDA regulations require manufacturers to disclose the “corrected amount of protein per serving” and corresponding % Daily Value, calculated by multiplying total protein by the PDCAAS. The complaint asserts that Naturecom failed to provide this corrected protein disclosure on the Nutrition Facts Panel, rendering the product misbranded and misleading. Plaintiff claims that once corrected for PDCAAS, the product provides only a fraction of the advertised 30 grams of protein, and that consumers were misled into believing they were purchasing a high-protein product comparable to other protein supplements. Plaintiff alleges he relied on the front-label protein claim when purchasing the product in California, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased the product—or would have paid less—had the true protein value been disclosed. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate protein and PDCAAS disclosures, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
15. Carrasco v. Nonni’s Foods LLC
Plaintiff: Shannon Carrasco
Defendant: Nonni’s Foods LLC
Product Focus: Nonni’s Bakery “Limone Biscotti”
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Nonni’s Foods deceptively markets its Limone Biscotti as “Baked With Real Lemons,” despite the product containing no more than a de minimis amount of real lemon, if any at all. The complaint highlights front-label representations including the phrase “Baked With Real Lemons,” the product name “Limone Biscotti,” and images of lemon wedges and lemon rind, which Plaintiff alleges lead reasonable consumers to believe the biscotti derives its lemon taste and health-related qualities from actual lemon ingredients.
According to the complaint, the ingredient list reveals that the only ingredient capable of providing lemon flavor is “natural flavors,” with no meaningful lemon-derived ingredients present. Plaintiff alleges that “natural flavors” are chemically isolated and synthesized compounds that do not provide the taste depth or nutritional benefits of real lemons, such as vitamin C or antioxidant properties. The complaint further asserts that Nonni’s intentionally leveraged consumer demand for foods made with real, recognizable ingredients to charge a price premium of approximately $4.99 per box. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York between November 2023 and September 2025, relied on the lemon-based representations, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the biscotti had she known it did not contain real lemons. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging false advertising and deceptive business practices.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and marketing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
16. Gomez v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
Plaintiff: Rebecca Gomez
Defendant: Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
Product Focus: Outshine Frozen Fruit
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Dreyer’s deceptively markets its Outshine Frozen Fruit Bars as wholesome, fruit-forward products through claims such as “Fruit Bars,” “Made with Real Fruit,” and “No Artificial Flavors,” despite the products allegedly being nutritionally comparable to candy rather than fruit. According to the complaint, the bars contain high levels of added sugar and rely on ingredients such as citric acid, malic acid, and “natural flavors” to create fruit taste, rather than deriving flavor and nutrition primarily from real fruit. Plaintiff alleges these representations mislead reasonable consumers into believing the products are healthy alternatives to fresh fruit.
The complaint further asserts that the branding, imagery, and product naming emphasize fruit content while minimizing disclosure of sugar levels and processing, allowing Dreyer’s to charge a price premium for products that do not deliver the nutritional benefits consumers associate with fruit. Plaintiff alleges she purchased Outshine Fruit Bars in California relying on these representations and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known the true nature of the products. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and breach of express warranty.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading fruit-based marketing, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
17. Settecasi v. Huel Inc.
Plaintiff: Sylvia Settecasi
Defendant: Huel Inc.
Product Focus: Huel protein powder and meal replacement products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Huel deceptively manufactures, markets, and sells its protein powder and meal replacement products while failing to disclose that the products contain, or are at risk of containing, unsafe levels of lead, a known neurotoxin. The complaint states that Huel prominently promotes its products as safe, trustworthy, and science-backed, emphasizing claims such as “crafted using the finest ingredients in nature,” “a formula you can trust,” “over 160 health benefits,” and “third-party tested.” According to Plaintiff, these representations lead reasonable consumers to believe the products are free from harmful substances and safe for daily consumption.
The complaint relies heavily on Consumer Reports testing published in October 2025, which found that one serving of Huel products contained approximately 6.3 micrograms of lead, equating to about 1,290% of Consumer Reports’ recommended daily lead limit. Additional testing allegedly detected measurable levels of cadmium and inorganic arsenic. Plaintiff asserts that despite listing ingredients on the packaging, Huel failed to disclose the presence or risk of lead contamination anywhere on the label, misleading consumers at the point of sale. Plaintiff claims she purchased Huel products multiple times in Florida, relied on the safety and health claims, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased the products had she known they contained a harmful neurotoxin. Causes of action include violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment, alleging economic injury and loss of the benefit of the bargain.
Prayer for Relief :
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of lead contamination risks, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
18. Cantwell v. Canel’s USA LLC
Plaintiff: Timothy Cantwell
Defendant: Canel’s USA LLC
Product Focus: Jarritos-branded “Naturally Flavored Sour Gummies”
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Canel’s USA LLC falsely and misleadingly markets its Jarritos Sour Gummies as “Naturally Flavored,” despite the product’s fruity and sour taste allegedly being derived in significant part from synthetic malic acid, an artificial flavoring ingredient. The complaint highlights that the front of the package prominently displays “Natural Flavors,” the phrase “Naturally Flavored Sour Gummies,” and images of fruits such as mango, mandarin, pineapple, lime, tamarind, and fruit punch, leading reasonable consumers to believe the taste comes exclusively from natural fruit-derived flavors.
According to the complaint, the ingredient list reveals the presence of malic acid and citric acid, with malic acid allegedly appearing in greater quantity than “natural flavors.” Plaintiff asserts that malic acid used in the product is DL-malic acid, a synthetic compound manufactured from petroleum-based inputs and chemical processes, rather than naturally extracted fruit acids. Plaintiff alleges that this synthetic ingredient provides much of the product’s tart and fruity taste, rendering the “Naturally Flavored” labeling false and misleading under New York law. Plaintiff claims he purchased the gummies in New York between January 2023 and September 2025, relied on the natural flavor representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had he known it contained artificial flavoring ingredients. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful flavor labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
19. Tsatskis v. Family Dollar Services LLC
Plaintiff: Israel Tsatskis
Defendant: Family Dollar Services LLC
Product Focus: Chestnut Hill brand Microwaveable Macaroni & Cheese Cups
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Family Dollar deceptively markets its Chestnut Hill Macaroni & Cheese Cups as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite the products containing citric acid, which Plaintiff alleges is a chemical, synthetic, and non-natural ingredient that functions as a preservative. The complaint asserts that the front-label claims, product name, and imagery—such as “Macaroni & Cheese Cups,” “Real Cheese,” “No Artificial Flavors,” and images of prepared macaroni—lead reasonable consumers to believe the product is free from chemical preservatives and relies only on traditional, natural ingredients.
According to the complaint, citric acid used in the product is not derived from citrus fruits but is instead industrially manufactured, typically from fermented carbohydrate substrates such as genetically modified corn using Aspergillus niger, a type of mold. Plaintiff alleges that citric acid serves multiple preservative-related functions, including lowering pH, inhibiting microbial growth, extending shelf life, preventing spoilage, stabilizing flavor and texture, and preventing rancidity. As a result, Plaintiff contends the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim is false and misleading under New York law. Plaintiff alleges he purchased the product in New York between January 2023 and September 2025, relied on the challenged representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had he known it contained a synthetic preservative. The complaint asserts violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief :
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading preservative claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper
20. Zarkowska v. Danone US LLC
Plaintiff: Lucyna Zarkowska
Defendant: Danone US LLC
Product Focus: International Delight Cold Foam Creamer / Cold Foam Coffee Creamer
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Danone falsely and misleadingly markets its International Delight Cold Foam products as containing “cold foam,” which consumers reasonably understand to be made from heavy cream and/or milk, when in fact the products contain no cream and virtually no milk. According to the complaint, the ingredient list reveals that the primary ingredients are water, sugar, and palm oil, with only a de minimis amount of sodium caseinate, identified as a “milk derivative,” present at less than 2%. Plaintiff alleges that these ingredients do not meet consumer expectations for cold foam, which is traditionally dairy-based and made from milk or cream.
The complaint further asserts that the product’s foam-like texture is created through palm oil and industrial additives, which Plaintiff characterizes as lower-quality substitutes used to mimic dairy ingredients while lacking their nutritional value, such as protein and calcium. Plaintiff alleges that Danone’s use of product names such as “Cold Foam Creamer” and “Foam Topper & Creamer,” combined with imagery of iced coffee topped with thick foam and surrounded by whipped cream, misleads consumers into believing the product contains substantive dairy ingredients. The complaint also alleges that the labeling fails to disclose that the product is effectively non-dairy, allowing Danone to charge a price premium of approximately $5.99. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and disclosure of the product’s dairy content, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
21. Gonzalez v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Plaintiff: Mark Gonzalez
Defendants: PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Product Focus: Frito-Lay “Poppables” puffed potato snacks
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely and misleadingly label their Poppables snack products as containing “No Artificial Flavors,” when the products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as a synthetic, industrially produced flavoring agent. According to the complaint, citric acid used in the products is not derived from citrus fruits, but instead is produced through an industrial fermentation process using Aspergillus niger (black mold). Plaintiff asserts that this ingredient is added specifically to impart a sour or tangy taste and therefore functions as an artificial flavor.
The complaint alleges that reasonable consumers interpret “No Artificial Flavors” to mean the absence of synthetic or laboratory-produced ingredients used to alter taste. Plaintiff further alleges that manufactured citric acid bears no meaningful relationship to naturally occurring citric acid found in fruit and may pose health concerns for individuals sensitive to mold-derived substances. Plaintiff claims he purchased Poppables products in New York in 2025 relying on the “No Artificial Flavors” claim, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had he known they contained a synthetic flavoring ingredient. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging deceptive acts and false advertising based on uniform labeling and marketing practices.
Prayer for Relief :
Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring truthful flavor labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
22. Noonan v. ByHeart, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Allison Noonan and Jillian Lugo
Defendant: ByHeart, Inc.
Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that ByHeart deceptively marketed and sold its infant formula products while failing to disclose that the products contained, or were at significant risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium that causes infant botulism. According to the complaint, ByHeart promoted its formula as safe, clean, and suitable for infants, emphasizing quality, testing, and premium ingredients, while omitting any warning regarding the risk of contamination. Plaintiffs allege that reasonable consumers relied on these representations when purchasing the formula for infant consumption.
The complaint further alleges that ByHeart’s recall, issued after public health authorities identified cases of infant botulism linked to the product, was confusing and inadequate, placing undue burdens on consumers seeking refunds. Plaintiffs claim they were required to provide receipts, retain packaging, or navigate retailer-specific processes, leaving many without compensation after discarding recalled formula. Plaintiffs allege they paid a price premium for formula they believed was safe and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain once the products were recalled and rendered unusable. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief requiring accurate safety disclosures and recall practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
23. Macartney v. Create Wellness, Inc.
Plaintiff: Casey Macartney
Defendant: Create Wellness, Inc.
Product Focus: Core – Create Creatine Monohydrate Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Create Wellness falsely and misleadingly markets its Core – Create Creatine Monohydrate Gummies as delivering 4.5 grams of creatine monohydrate per serving, when independent laboratory testing allegedly shows the product contains significantly less creatine than advertised. According to the complaint, the creatine content claim is prominently displayed on the product’s packaging, website, and promotional materials, leading reasonable consumers to believe they are receiving a full, clinically effective dose of creatine.
The complaint asserts that testing of the gummies revealed creatine levels well below the represented amount, rendering the product misbranded and the labeling false. Plaintiff alleges that Create Wellness either failed to conduct adequate quality control testing or knowingly misrepresented the creatine content to command a price premium in the competitive supplement market. Plaintiff claims he purchased the product relying on the advertised creatine dosage and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known the true creatine content. Causes of action include violations of state consumer protection laws, false advertising, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring accurate creatine content labeling, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
24. Gavin Johnson v. Constellation Brands, Inc.
Plaintiff: Gavin Johnson
Defendant: Constellation Brands, Inc. and Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc.
Product Focus: Casa Noble Tequila products
Summary:
The lawsuit alleges that Constellation Brands falsely markets its Casa Noble tequila products as being made from “100% Blue Weber agave.” According to the complaint, independent isotope testing (SNIF-NMR analysis) revealed that the tequila contains ethanol derived from non-agave sources, such as corn or sugarcane, which is inconsistent with regulatory requirements for products labeled as “100% agave.”
Plaintiff claims that consumers paid premium prices relying on the purity and authenticity representations on the labels. The complaint asserts that the alleged adulteration violates federal and state consumer protection laws, including Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and that consumers would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had they known the true composition.
Prayer of Relief:
Plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class, injunctive relief to stop the alleged deceptive labeling practices, monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.
25. Carbine v. Damascus Bakery, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jennifer Carbine
Defendant: Damascus Bakery, Inc.
Product Focus: Brooklyn Bred brand pizza crust products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Damascus Bakery falsely and misleadingly labels its Brooklyn Bred pizza crust products as containing “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives,” despite the products containing ascorbic acid, which Plaintiff alleges is a synthetic, artificial preservative. According to the complaint, the “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” claim is prominently displayed on the product packaging and is material to consumers seeking minimally processed foods without synthetic additives.
The complaint asserts that the ascorbic acid used in the products is commercially and synthetically manufactured through multi-step chemical processes involving industrial solvents and acids, rather than being naturally derived from food sources. Plaintiff further alleges that ascorbic acid functions as a preservative by preventing microbial growth, preserving freshness, and extending shelf life, regardless of whether it is added for additional purposes. Plaintiff claims that reasonable consumers are misled by the labeling, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had they known the products contained an artificial preservative. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of express warranty.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading preservative claims and requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
26. Johnson v. Garden of Life LLC
Plaintiff: Oneika Johnson
Defendant: Garden of Life LLC
Product Focus: Garden of Life Dr. Formulated Triple Action Fiber Plus Magnesium & Probiotics Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Garden of Life deceptively markets its Triple Action Fiber Plus Magnesium & Probiotics Gummies by prominently advertising “5g Plant Based Prebiotic Fiber” and “72 Gummies” on the front label, which allegedly misleads consumers into believing that each gummy delivers five grams of fiber and that the bottle provides seventy-two servings. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts panel—placed in small print on a non-visible side—discloses that the serving size is three gummies, meaning the container provides only twenty-four servings, and that each individual gummy delivers only one-third of the advertised fiber amount.
The complaint asserts that this labeling scheme constitutes misbranding under New York law because it creates a false impression regarding the quantity and strength of the product while impeding meaningful value comparisons. Plaintiff alleges that reasonable consumers expect the advertised nutrient quantity to correspond to a single unit (i.e., one gummy), especially when the front label highlights a numerical count and a nutrient amount without clear qualifying disclosures. Plaintiff further alleges that Garden of Life could have easily avoided consumer confusion by disclosing “3 Gummies Per Serving,” “24-Day Supply,” or similar clarifying language on the front label, as competitor products do. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York between January 2023 and September 2025, relied on the front-label representations, paid a price premium of approximately $13.99, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known the true serving structure. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive acts and false advertising.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages reflecting the price premium paid, injunctive relief requiring truthful and fully informative front-label disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
27. Barrales v. Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever
Plaintiffs: Tinamarie Barrales and Latonya Wright
Defendant: Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever
Product Focus: SmartyPants Kids Multi & Fiber Gummies and SmartyPants Kids Fiber & Veggies Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that Unilever deceptively markets its SmartyPants Kids Multi & Fiber and Fiber & Veggies gummy vitamins by repeatedly claiming that the products contain “as much fiber” as multiple cups of vegetables or fruits, including kale, broccoli, and prunes. According to the complaint, these representations are false because the gummies contain only soluble fiber, primarily inulin, while fruits and vegetables contain both soluble and insoluble fiber, which serve different and essential digestive functions—particularly for children. Plaintiffs allege that insoluble fiber is critical for bowel regularity and stool bulk, benefits the gummies cannot provide.
The complaint further alleges that Unilever’s comparisons are misleading because the total fiber content of the gummies is significantly lower than the fiber found in the referenced amounts of kale, broccoli, or prunes. Plaintiffs contend that Unilever intentionally targeted parents of picky eaters by positioning the gummies as a substitute for vegetables, allowing the company to charge a price premium. Plaintiffs allege they relied on the challenged claims when purchasing the products, paid more than they otherwise would have, and would not have purchased the gummies had they known the fiber claims were false. Causes of action include violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, California consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading fiber-equivalency claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
Risk Reduction Tips for Food & Beverage Brands
- Front-label clarity (serving size + count): If you advertise “X grams” and “X gummies/units,” clearly disclose servings per container and units per serving on the front to avoid “per piece vs per serving” confusion.
- Substantiate purity/“clean” claims: Don’t use “clean,” “premium,” “nothing to hide,” or “tested for hundreds of contaminants” unless you have documented testing protocols and results that match the claim.
- Heavy metals control program: Implement routine ingredient + finished-product testing for lead/cadmium/arsenic; set internal action limits; keep COAs and corrective-action records ready.
- Protein claims: use PDCAAS where required: For protein content and %DV claims, confirm compliance with FDA protein quality rules and disclose corrected protein where applicable.
- Be careful with “Natural” and “No Artificial ___” claims: Audit whether ingredients (e.g., acids/flavors/preservative-function additives) could be characterized as synthetic or functional preservatives/flavors; align claims with formulation and function.
- Avoid ingredient-implied claims that aren’t true: If branding implies a key ingredient (e.g., “real lemons,” “fruit & veggie”), ensure meaningful presence and don’t rely on “natural flavors” as a substitute.
- Dairy/cream representations must match formula: If a product is marketed as “creamer,” “cold foam,” or dairy-forward, ensure the ingredient composition supports that consumer expectation (and disclose non-dairy substitutes clearly).
- Children’s products: market responsibly: For kid-targeted products, avoid packaging/imagery that encourages unsafe use (e.g., ingestion risk) and ensure warnings/directions are conspicuous.
- Marketing channel audits: Align label, website, retailer listings, and ads—plaintiffs often cite inconsistencies across platforms as deception evidence.
