The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits filed in January 2026. 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. Boyd v. Wisdom Natural Brands
Plaintiff: John Boyd
Defendant: Wisdom Natural Brands
Product Focus: SweetLeaf® Monk Fruit Organic Sweetener
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Wisdom Natural Brands deceptively markets its SweetLeaf Monk Fruit Organic Sweetener as a natural, monk fruit–based product, when in reality the product allegedly contains less than 1% monk fruit extract and is primarily composed of erythritol, an artificial sweetener. According to the complaint, the front label prominently features the phrases “Monk Fruit Organic Sweetener,” “Sweetened by Nature,” and “Nothing Artificial,” along with imagery suggesting a natural, fruit-based sweetener, leading reasonable consumers to believe monk fruit is the primary ingredient.
The complaint further alleges that independent laboratory testing revealed the product consists of approximately 99% erythritol and only 0.87% monk fruit extract. Plaintiff asserts that erythritol is synthetically manufactured through industrial fermentation and chemical processing and does not qualify as a natural ingredient as consumers understand the term. Plaintiff claims that Wisdom Natural Brands intentionally emphasized monk fruit—an ingredient widely viewed as premium and health-forward—to justify charging a price premium, while concealing the product’s true composition. Plaintiff alleges he purchased the product in California relying on these representations and would not have purchased it, or would have paid less, had he known it was primarily an artificial sweetener. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading monk fruit and “nothing artificial” claims, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
2. Burns v. Aldi Inc. (New York)
Plaintiff: Christine Burns
Defendant: Aldi Inc. (New York)
Product Focus: Chef’s Cupboard “Buttery Mashed Potatoes”
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Aldi falsely and misleadingly markets its Chef’s Cupboard Buttery Mashed Potatoes as being made “With Real Butter” and as delivering a buttery taste derived predominantly from butter, when in fact butter is present only in a de minimis amount, if at all. According to the complaint, the ingredient list reveals that the primary fat ingredient is coconut oil, while butter appears in significantly smaller quantities than consumers would reasonably expect based on the product’s name, labeling, and imagery. Plaintiff alleges that the presence of “natural flavors” exceeds the amount of butter and is used to simulate buttery taste.
The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret “Buttery Mashed Potatoes” and “With Real Butter” to mean that butter is the exclusive or predominant fat and flavoring ingredient, or at least present in a meaningful amount sufficient to deliver butter’s sensory and nutritional attributes. Plaintiff alleges that Aldi’s labeling and packaging—including references to “Buttery,” “With Real Butter,” and images of pats of butter—mislead consumers into paying a price premium for a product that does not deliver what is promised. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York between January 2023 and September 2025, relied on the challenged representations, paid approximately $1.39, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known the true composition. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “buttery” and “with real butter” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
3. Cassar v. Litehouse, Inc.
Plaintiff: Gina Cassar
Defendant: Litehouse, Inc.
Product Focus: Litehouse Avocado Ranch Dip & Spread
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Litehouse falsely and misleadingly markets its Avocado Ranch Dip & Spread as containing “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives,” despite the product containing phosphoric acid, which Plaintiff alleges is a synthetic, chemically manufactured ingredient that functions as a preservative. According to the complaint, phosphoric acid is disclosed only in fine print on the ingredient list, while the front label prominently emphasizes the absence of artificial additives and features imagery of fresh avocados, crackers, and vegetables, reinforcing a perception of naturalness.
The complaint devotes extensive detail to the industrial production and functional role of phosphoric acid, alleging it is produced through mining phosphate rock and chemical processing and does not exist naturally in food. Plaintiff alleges that phosphoric acid performs multiple preservative-related functions in the product, including lowering pH, inhibiting microbial growth, buffering acidity, extending shelf life, stabilizing flavor and texture, acting as an antimicrobial agent, preventing oxidation and rancidity, and maintaining product quality after opening. Plaintiff asserts that these preservative functions directly contradict Litehouse’s “No Artificial … Preservatives” claim, rendering the product misbranded under New York law. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the product in New York between January 2023 and September 2025, relied on the challenged representations, paid a price premium of approximately $4.49, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it contained a synthetic preservative. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “no artificial preservatives” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
4. Hartwright v. Orgain, LLC and Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiff: Randall Hartwright
Defendants: Orgain, LLC and Costco Wholesale Corporation
Product Focus: Orgain protein powder products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Orgain and Costco deceptively marketed and sold Orgain protein powder products while failing to disclose the presence of lead, a toxic heavy metal with no known safe level of ingestion. According to the complaint, Defendants represented the protein powder as healthy and appropriate for daily consumption, omissions that were material to reasonable consumers concerned about food safety and contamination. Plaintiff alleges that the presence of lead would have influenced purchasing decisions had it been disclosed.
The complaint cites independent laboratory testing published by Consumer Reports in October 2025, which allegedly found measurable and significant levels of lead in Orgain protein powder. Plaintiff further alleges that despite the public availability of this information, Costco continued selling the product without warning consumers, and even accepted returns of the protein powder after the expiration date, allegedly demonstrating awareness of contamination concerns. Plaintiff claims he purchased and consumed the product in Texas, was exposed to lead through ingestion, and now faces an increased risk of harm requiring medical monitoring. Causes of action include strict products liability (failure to warn), violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, and a claim for medical monitoring, as well as requests for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, medical monitoring relief, injunctive and declaratory relief requiring adequate warnings and corrective labeling, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
5. Jackson v. Diageo North America, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jacqueline Jackson
Defendant: Diageo North America, Inc.
Product Focus: Diageo “Premium Tequila Products”
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Diageo falsely and misleadingly markets its Casamigos and Don Julio tequila products as “100% agave,” when, in fact, the products allegedly contain significant amounts of non-agave alcohol, such as ethanol derived from cane sugar or corn. According to the complaint, Diageo’s labeling, advertising, and certification claims led reasonable consumers to believe the tequila was produced exclusively from Blue Weber agave, as required by U.S. and Mexican tequila regulations for products bearing the “100% agave” designation.
The complaint relies on scientific isotope testing, including nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and carbon-13 analysis, which allegedly revealed chemical signatures inconsistent with agave-only fermentation and indicative of non-agave sugars. Plaintiff alleges that multiple tested products contained ethanol derived primarily from C4 plants rather than agave. The complaint further alleges that Diageo knowingly concealed this adulteration while continuing to charge premium prices and that regulatory certifications relied upon by Diageo were ineffective or compromised. Plaintiff claims she purchased the products in California relying on the “100% agave” representations and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known the products were adulterated. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California False Advertising Law (FAL), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and federal RICO statutes, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and equitable relief.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages reflecting the premium prices paid, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “100% agave” claims, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
6. Strachman v. Nutranext Business LLC
Plaintiff: Jacqueline Strachman
Defendant: Nutranext Business LLC
Product Focus: Solaray Magnesium Supplement Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Nutranext deceptively markets its Solaray Magnesium Supplement Gummies by prominently representing that the product contains “60 Gummies” and delivers “330 mg magnesium per serving,” which allegedly misleads consumers into believing that each individual gummy provides 330 mg of magnesium. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts panel—placed on a non-visible side of the container—discloses that the serving size is four gummies, meaning each gummy contains only one-quarter of the advertised magnesium amount.
The complaint asserts that this labeling scheme constitutes misbranding because reasonable consumers interpret the numerical count of gummies and the highlighted magnesium amount as corresponding to a single unit. Plaintiff alleges that Nutranext failed to clearly disclose on the front label that four gummies are required to obtain the advertised magnesium dose and that the container provides only fifteen servings, not sixty. Plaintiff further alleges that competitor brands disclose serving size and magnesium-per-unit information more transparently, demonstrating that Nutranext could have easily avoided consumer confusion. Plaintiff claims she relied on the front-label representations when purchasing the product in New York, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known the true quantity of magnesium per gummy. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring clear and accurate front-label disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
7. Morgan v. Florida Natural Growers, Inc.
Plaintiff: Marcus Simpson Morgan
Defendant: Florida Natural Growers, Inc.
Product Focus: Florida’s Natural Grapefruit Juice products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Florida Natural Growers falsely and misleadingly markets its Florida’s Natural grapefruit juice products as being made exclusively from Florida-grown grapefruit, when in fact the products allegedly contain grapefruit juice sourced from Mexico. According to the complaint, the front-label branding prominently emphasizes Florida origin through the product name “Florida’s Natural,” statements such as “Owned by Florida Farmers,” U.S. flag imagery, and marketing language suggesting superior quality and authenticity associated with Florida citrus. Plaintiff alleges these representations lead reasonable consumers to believe the products are made solely from premium Florida grapefruit juice.
The complaint asserts that due to declining Florida citrus production, Florida Natural began blending Mexican grapefruit juice into its products beginning in or around May 2022, without disclosing this material fact to consumers. Plaintiff alleges that Florida origin is a key purchasing driver, supported by consumer research demonstrating that products labeled with Florida origin command higher prices and are perceived as higher quality. Plaintiff claims he purchased the products in California relying on the Florida origin representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had he known the juice was not made exclusively from Florida grapefruit. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California False Advertising Law (FAL), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading Florida-origin representations, corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
8. Le v. McDonald’s Corporation
Plaintiffs: Peter Le, Charles Lynch, Dorien Baker, and Derrick Wilson (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated)
Defendant: McDonald’s Corporation
Product Focus: McDonald’s McRib sandwich
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that McDonald’s deceptively markets the McRib by using its name, shape, advertising, and promotional imagery to falsely imply that the sandwich contains actual pork rib meat, when in fact it allegedly contains no meaningful quantity of real pork rib meat at all. According to the complaint, the McRib patty is made from lower-grade pork cuts such as shoulder, heart, stomach, and tripe, which are mechanically processed and molded into a rib-like shape to resemble a rack of ribs. Plaintiffs allege that the use of the term “Rib” in the product name and the distinctive rib-shaped patty intentionally mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing a premium pork rib product.
The complaint further alleges that McDonald’s reinforces this false impression through decades of advertising portraying the McRib as a special, premium, limited-time offering tied to pork rib meat, scarcity, and higher quality. Plaintiffs assert that reasonable consumers associate pork ribs with higher-value cuts and are willing to pay a price premium based on that belief. Plaintiffs allege they purchased the McRib in multiple states relying on McDonald’s representations and would not have purchased the sandwich—or would have paid less—had they known it did not contain actual pork rib meat. Causes of action include fraudulent omission, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and other state consumer protection laws.
Prayer for Relief :
Plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “rib” representations, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
9. Blackwell v. King’s Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc.
Plaintiff: Tisha Blackwell
Defendant: King’s Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc.
Product Focus: King’s Hawaiian Honey Wheat Rolls
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that King’s Hawaiian falsely and misleadingly markets its Honey Wheat Rolls as being “Made with 6 Whole Grains,” leading reasonable consumers to believe that whole grains are the predominant grain ingredients or are present in more than a de minimis amount. According to the complaint, the ingredient list reveals that the product’s first ingredient is enriched flour, a refined grain, while whole grain ingredients such as whole wheat flour and a “6 grain blend” appear after water and sugar, indicating they are present in significantly smaller quantities.
The complaint further alleges that the Nutrition Facts panel confirms the minimal presence of whole grains, as the fiber content is less than one gram per serving, which Plaintiff asserts is inconsistent with a product containing meaningful amounts of whole grains. Plaintiff claims that the labeling, product name, and imagery— including references to “Honey Wheat,” “King’s Hawaiian,” “Hilo, Hawaii,” and images of Hawaiian flowers— reinforce the misleading impression that the product is primarily whole grain–based. Plaintiff alleges she 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 she known whole grains were not the predominant grain ingredient. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading whole-grain representations, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
10. McLendon v. Ken’s Foods Inc.
Plaintiff: Kathyann McLendon
Defendant: Ken’s Foods Inc.
Product Focus: Ken’s Steak House Chef’s Reserve Honey Balsamic Dressing
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Ken’s Foods falsely and misleadingly markets its Chef’s Reserve Honey Balsamic Dressing as being sweetened primarily or exclusively with honey, when in fact the product is sweetened mainly with refined sugar. According to the complaint, the front label prominently features the product name “Honey Balsamic Dressing,” images of a honey pot and honey dipper, and other visual cues that lead reasonable consumers to believe honey is the primary sweetening ingredient. However, the ingredient list allegedly reveals that sugar is listed ahead of honey, indicating it is present in a greater amount.
The complaint asserts that honey is a characterizing ingredient and that substituting refined sugar for honey is material to consumers because honey is more expensive, less processed, nutritionally distinct, and perceived as healthier than refined sugar. Plaintiff further alleges that the product name is misleading and not a “common or usual name” for a dressing sweetened primarily with sugar, and that competitor products labeled as honey balsamic dressings are in fact sweetened predominantly or exclusively with honey. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York relying on the honey-based representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it was mainly sweetened with sugar. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading honey-related labeling and product naming, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
11. Weisman v. Tribal Nutrition LLC d/b/a Ka’Chava
Plaintiff: Melissa Weisman
Defendant: Tribal Nutrition LLC, doing business as Ka’Chava
Product Focus: Ka’Chava All-In-One Nutrition Shakes
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Ka’Chava deceptively markets its All-In-One Nutrition Shakes as providing all essential nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients and as functioning as a complete or comprehensive meal replacement, when the products allegedly do not deliver what is promised. According to the complaint, Ka’Chava repeatedly represents across packaging, websites, search results, social media, and retailer listings that the shakes contain “everything” the body needs and can replace a full meal.
The complaint asserts that, in reality, the shakes omit essential nutrients, including Vitamin K and choline, and provide insubstantial amounts of carbohydrates, fat, and calories. A single serving allegedly contains only 240 calories, approximately 7–8% of daily carbohydrates, and 8% of daily fat, which Plaintiff claims is inconsistent with reasonable consumer expectations for a meal replacement. Plaintiff further alleges that even consuming multiple shakes per day would fail to provide adequate caloric or macronutrient intake. Plaintiff claims Ka’Chava used these “all-in-one” and “complete meal” representations to position itself as a nutritional authority and to charge a price premium, causing consumers to overpay for a product that cannot function as advertised. Causes of action include violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “all-in-one” and “complete meal” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
12. Carpenter et al. v. Celestial Seasonings, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Michelle Carpenter, Jaquay Davis, Rebekah Myatt Hammonds, Amber Rust, and Nanci Selk
Defendant: Celestial Seasonings, Inc.
Product Focus: Celestial Seasonings herbal tea products
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that Celestial Seasonings falsely and misleadingly markets its herbal tea products as containing only natural flavors and no artificial ingredients, when the teas allegedly contain synthetically manufactured citric acid used as a flavoring agent. According to the complaint, the front labels and marketing materials repeatedly emphasize naturalness, quality sourcing, and the absence of artificial flavors, leading reasonable consumers to believe all flavoring ingredients are naturally derived.
The complaint asserts that the citric acid used in the teas is manufactured citric acid, produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing, rather than naturally occurring citric acid derived directly from fruit. Plaintiffs allege that Celestial Seasonings knowingly listed citric acid separately from “other natural flavors,” reinforcing the misleading impression that the teas contained only natural flavoring components. Plaintiffs further allege that the company’s marketing campaigns, sustainability messaging, and long-standing reputation for natural products amplified the deception and allowed Celestial Seasonings to charge a price premium. Plaintiffs claim they relied on the challenged representations when purchasing the teas in multiple states and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had they known they contained artificial flavoring. Causes of action include violations of state consumer protection statutes in Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and New York, as well as unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “natural flavor” and “no artificial flavor” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
13. Velez v. Smartfoods Inc.
Plaintiff: Wendy Velez
Defendant: Smartfoods Inc.
Product Focus: Smartfood White Cheddar Flavored Popcorn
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Smartfoods deceptively markets its White Cheddar Flavored Popcorn as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when the product allegedly contains maltodextrin, a chemically processed ingredient that Plaintiff contends functions as a synthetic preservative. According to the complaint, the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim is prominently displayed on the front of the packaging alongside natural imagery such as corn, cheese, and popcorn, leading reasonable consumers to believe the product does not contain chemical or synthetic ingredients that preserve freshness or extend shelf life.
The complaint provides detailed allegations describing maltodextrin’s industrial manufacturing process and its functional role in the product, including moisture control, inhibition of microbial growth, oxidation prevention, flowability, emulsification, and stabilization of fats and oils. Plaintiff alleges that these functions demonstrate maltodextrin’s preservative effects, directly contradicting the front-label claims. Plaintiff further alleges that Smartfoods used these representations to justify charging a price premium of approximately $2.69 and that she relied on the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim when purchasing the product in New York. Plaintiff asserts she would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it contained a chemical ingredient serving preservative functions. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “no artificial preservatives” claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
14. Fields v. Fresh Gourmet Company LLC
Plaintiff: Wondet Fields
Defendant: Fresh Gourmet Company LLC
Product Focus: Fresh Gourmet “Butter & Garlic Croutons”
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Fresh Gourmet deceptively markets its “Butter & Garlic Croutons” as containing real butter, when in fact the product allegedly contains no butter at all. According to the complaint, the front label prominently features the words “Butter & Garlic,” yellow coloring associated with butter, and images of croutons on salad, all of which lead reasonable consumers to believe butter is an ingredient and a characterizing component of the product.
The complaint asserts that the ingredient list reveals the absence of butter and instead discloses other dairy-related ingredients, including milk, nonfat milk, butter oil, and natural flavors, which Plaintiff alleges are not equivalent to butter. Plaintiff further alleges that butter oil differs materially from butter in composition, flavor profile, fat content, processing, and storage, and may contain additives such as antioxidants not found in butter. Plaintiff claims that butter is a premium ingredient that materially affects consumer purchasing decisions and product pricing, and that substituting butter oil and other dairy ingredients while labeling the product as “Butter & Garlic” is misleading and violates New York labeling regulations governing common or usual names and characterizing ingredients. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the product in New York relying on the butter-based representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it contained no butter. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring truthful product naming and labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
15. Elkind v. RB Health (US) LLC
Plaintiff: Anne Elkind
Defendant: RB Health (US) LLC
Product Focus: Airborne Immune Support Gummies
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that RB Health deceptively markets its Airborne Immune Support Gummies by prominently advertising “400 mg of Vitamin C” alongside “132 Gummies,” leading reasonable consumers to believe that each individual gummy provides 400 mg of Vitamin C or that the container delivers 132 servings at that strength. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts panel—placed on a non-visible side of the bottle—discloses that the serving size is three gummies, meaning consumers receive only one-third of the advertised Vitamin C amount per gummy and that the bottle contains only 44 servings, not 132.
The complaint asserts that this labeling scheme constitutes misbranding under New York law because it falsely indicates the quantity, strength, and value of the product and impedes meaningful price and value comparisons. Plaintiff alleges that consumers reasonably expect numerical counts and highlighted nutrient amounts on the front label to correspond to a single unit, especially in gummy supplements. The complaint further alleges that competitor brands disclose serving size and supply duration clearly on the front label, demonstrating that RB Health could have avoided consumer confusion. Plaintiff claims she purchased the product in New York between January 2023 and October 2025, relied on the front-label representations, paid a price premium of approximately $23.39, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it required three gummies to obtain the advertised Vitamin C amount. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring clear and fully informative front-label disclosures regarding serving size and nutrient quantity, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
16. Swartz v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff: David Swartz
Defendants: Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc.
Product Focus: Dave’s Killer Bread products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully market Dave’s Killer Bread products by prominently displaying protein content claims on the front of the packaging without complying with FDA and California labeling regulations governing protein quality and disclosure. According to the complaint, while Defendants advertise specific grams of protein per serving, they fail to disclose the corrected amount of usable protein based on protein quality, as required by FDA regulations using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) methodology.
The complaint explains that the primary protein sources in the products—wheat and oats—are low-quality plant proteins with PDCAAS scores between 0.4 and 0.5, meaning that only 40–50% of the listed protein is actually usable by the human body. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result, consumers receive significantly less usable protein than reasonably expected from the front-label claims. Despite this, Defendants allegedly failed to include the required percent daily value (%DV) for corrected protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel, rendering both the protein claims and the nutrition labeling unlawful. Plaintiff claims he relied on the “5g Protein” representations when purchasing the products in California, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had the corrected protein information been disclosed. The claims are brought under the California Unfair Competition Law based on violations of parallel federal and state food-labeling regulations.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution of amounts paid due to the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting unlawful protein claims without proper disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
17. Williams v. Starbucks Corporation
Plaintiff: Jennifer Williams
Defendant: Starbucks Corporation
Product Focus: Starbucks coffee products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Starbucks falsely and misleadingly markets its coffee products as being “100% ethically sourced” through its proprietary Coffee and Farmer Equity (“C.A.F.E.”) Practices program, when Starbucks allegedly knew or should have known that its supply chain involved forced labor, child labor, wage theft, and unsafe working conditions. According to the complaint, Starbucks’ ethical sourcing claims lead reasonable consumers to believe the company’s coffee is produced without labor abuses and in compliance with international human rights standards, which Plaintiff alleges is not true.
The complaint further alleges that Starbucks failed to disclose that certain decaffeinated coffee products contain detectable levels of chemical solvents and volatile organic compounds, including methylene chloride, a substance allegedly associated with the decaffeination process. Plaintiff asserts that Starbucks’ marketing emphasizing purity, quality, and ethical responsibility creates a misleading impression that its coffee is free from harmful chemicals. Plaintiff claims she purchased Starbucks coffee products relying on these representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had she known the truth about labor practices and chemical content. Causes of action include violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, and claims for fraudulent concealment under Washington and New York law.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading ethical sourcing and purity claims, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
18. Alicia George v. Wakefern Food Corp.
Plaintiff: Alicia George
Defendant: Wakefern Food Corp.
Product Focus: Bowl & Basket Deluxe Four Cheese Macaroni & Cheese products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Wakefern Food Corp. deceptively markets its Bowl & Basket Deluxe Four Cheese Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” when, according to the ingredient list, the product contains sorbic acid, a chemical ingredient that functions as a preservative. The complaint asserts that sorbic acid is an industrially manufactured chemical derived from petrochemical sources and is added specifically to preserve freshness, contradicting the front-label representations.
The lawsuit further alleges that reasonable consumers interpret “No Artificial Preservatives” to mean the absence of chemical or synthetic ingredients that extend shelf life, maintain freshness, or inhibit spoilage. Plaintiff claims she relied on these representations when purchasing the product and paid a price premium based on the belief that the product did not contain chemical preservatives. According to the complaint, the omission of clear disclosure regarding sorbic acid’s preservative function renders the labeling misleading and violates New York consumer protection laws. Plaintiff asserts she would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had she known it contained a chemical preservative.
Prayer of Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading preservative-free claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
19. Espinoza v. Tru Brands, Inc.
Plaintiff: Gabriel Espinoza
Defendant: Tru Brands, Inc.
Product Focus: Tru Brands protein bar products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Tru Brands falsely and misleadingly labels its protein bar products as containing “10 mg Sodium” per serving, when in fact the products allegedly contain more than 20% higher sodium levels than disclosed on the Nutrition Facts label. According to the complaint, Tru Brands prominently marketed the low-sodium claim to health-conscious consumers seeking products suitable for controlled sodium intake, including individuals concerned about hypertension and cardiovascular health.
The complaint asserts that independent laboratory testing of multiple product samples revealed sodium levels ranging from approximately 30 mg to nearly 39 mg per serving, far exceeding the stated 10 mg amount. Plaintiff alleges that this discrepancy renders the products misbranded under California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law and violates state consumer protection statutes. Plaintiff claims he purchased the products in California relying on the low-sodium representation, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had he known the true sodium content. The complaint further alleges that Tru Brands knew or should have known of the inaccurate sodium labeling and continued selling the products despite the misrepresentation. Causes of action include violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and claims for breach of express and implied warranties.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and compensatory damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring accurate sodium labeling and compliance with food labeling laws, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
20. Burnett v. Kind LLC
Plaintiff: Jade Burnett
Defendant: Kind LLC and Kind Foods LLC
Product Focus: KIND Healthy Grains® Dark Chocolate Clusters granola products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Kind falsely and misleadingly markets its KIND Healthy Grains® Dark Chocolate Clusters as a healthy product made with “super grains” that are “kind for your body,” while failing to disclose that the product contains lead. According to the complaint, Kind prominently promotes claims such as “Healthy Grains,” “Made with 5 Super Grains,” “Ingredients You Can See and Pronounce,” and other wellness-focused representations that lead reasonable consumers to believe the product is safe and beneficial for regular consumption.
The lawsuit asserts that independent laboratory testing commissioned by Plaintiff’s counsel detected 2.34 micrograms of lead per serving, an amount alleged to exceed California’s Proposition 65 maximum allowable daily exposure level for lead. Plaintiff claims that the presence of lead directly contradicts the product’s health-focused marketing and was a material fact omitted from the labeling. Plaintiff alleges she purchased the product relying on these representations, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had she known it contained lead. The complaint brings claims under California consumer protection statutes, including the UCL, FAL, CLRA, as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading health claims without disclosure of lead content, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
21. Jenkins v. Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
Plaintiff: Shastin Jenkins
Defendants: The Kraft Heinz Company; Mondelez International, Inc.; Post Holdings, Inc.; The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo, Inc.; General Mills, Inc.; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Kellanova; WK Kellogg Co.; Mars, Incorporated; Conagra Brands, Inc.
Product Focus: A broad range of ultra-processed food (“UPF”) products manufactured and sold by Defendants
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold ultra-processed food products that are unreasonably dangerous when consumed as intended, particularly through regular and long-term consumption beginning in childhood. According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly engineered their UPF products using additives, processing methods, and flavor optimization techniques intended to drive overconsumption and addictive eating behaviors, while concealing the health risks associated with ultra-processing.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to warn consumers that their UPF products increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, metabolic dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses, independent of their labeled nutrient content. Plaintiff alleges she consumed Defendants’ UPF products frequently throughout childhood and was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease at age 14 as a direct result. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants knowingly marketed these products as safe, fun, and appropriate for children while suppressing scientific evidence of harm and leveraging behavioral research—originating in part from the tobacco industry—to maximize consumption. Claims include strict products liability (failure to warn), negligence, gross negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment under Louisiana law and other applicable statutes.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks compensatory, economic, statutory, and punitive damages; injunctive relief requiring adequate warnings and disclosures; restitution; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
22. Muthusami v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
Plaintiff: Davina Muthusami
Defendants: The Kraft Heinz Company; Mondelez International, Inc.; Post Holdings, Inc.; The Coca-Cola Company; PepsiCo, Inc.; General Mills, Inc.; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Kellanova; WK Kellogg Co.; Mars, Incorporated; Conagra Brands, Inc.
Product Focus: A wide range of ultra-processed food (“UPF”) products manufactured and sold by Defendants
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold ultra-processed food products that are addictive, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous when consumed as intended, particularly through frequent consumption beginning in childhood. According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly engineered their UPF products using industrial processing techniques, chemical additives, and flavor optimization strategies intended to drive overconsumption, while concealing the associated health risks.
The complaint asserts that Defendants knew or should have known that regular consumption of UPF increases the risk of Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, metabolic dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses, independent of the products’ stated nutrient content. Plaintiff alleges she consumed Defendants’ UPF products frequently throughout childhood and was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes at age 15, along with other lasting health injuries. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants failed to warn consumers that their products are engineered to be addictive, promote overconsumption, and contain dangerous combinations of nutrients and additives. Claims include strict products liability (failure to warn), negligence, gross negligence, breach of implied warranties, fraudulent concealment, concerted action, and unjust enrichment under Florida law and other applicable statutes.
Prayer for Relief: Plaintiff seeks compensatory, economic, statutory, and punitive damages; injunctive relief requiring adequate warnings and disclosures; restitution; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
23. Crow v. Topco Associates, LLC and Great Lakes Cheese Co. Inc.
Plaintiff: Shelby Crow
Defendants: Topco Associates, LLC; Great Lakes Cheese Co. Inc.
Product Focus: Private-label shredded cheese products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deceptively manufactured, marketed, and sold shredded cheese products that contain or are at risk of containing metal fragments, while failing to disclose this material safety risk on product labeling. According to the complaint, Defendants’ packaging lists ingredients such as “natural cheese” and promotes the products as “high quality” and made with “safe ingredients and reliable materials,” creating the impression that the products are safe for consumption.
The lawsuit alleges that metal fragments entered the products through defective or inadequate manufacturing processes and that Defendants omitted this information despite knowing consumers reasonably expect food products to be free from hazardous foreign objects. Plaintiff further alleges that a voluntary recall was initiated due to the potential presence of metal, confirming the safety risk, yet consumers were not adequately warned at the point of sale. Plaintiff claims she relied on the absence of any disclosure regarding metal contamination when purchasing the products, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had the risk been disclosed. The complaint asserts claims for deceptive practices, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of multiple state consumer protection laws.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring disclosure or corrective manufacturing practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
24. Ghanaat v. The Lemon Perfect Company
Plaintiff: Star Ghanaat
Defendant: The Lemon Perfect Company
Product Focus: Lemon Perfect brand beverage products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that The Lemon Perfect Company falsely and misleadingly markets its Lemon Perfect beverages as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners,” when the products allegedly contain stevia leaf extract, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificial sweetener. According to the complaint, the “No Artificial Sweeteners” claim is prominently displayed on the front labels and marketing materials, leading reasonable consumers to believe the products are free from artificial or synthetic sweetening agents.
The complaint provides detailed allegations regarding the industrial processing and purification of stevia leaf extract, asserting that the commercial ingredient consists of highly refined steviol glycosides produced through multi-step chemical and physical processes, resulting in a crystalline powder that does not naturally occur in the stevia plant. Plaintiff alleges that stevia leaf extract is used solely to replace sugar and reduce calories, functioning identically to other artificial sweeteners such as sucralose or aspartame. Plaintiff claims she purchased the products in California relying on the “No Artificial Sweeteners” representation, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had she known they contained an artificial sweetener. 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 disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “no artificial sweeteners” claims and requiring corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
25. Sabath v. Life Seasons Inc.
Plaintiff: William Sabath
Defendant: Life Seasons Inc.
Product Focus: Life Seasons Liposomal Vitamin C dietary supplement
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Life Seasons deceptively markets its Liposomal Vitamin C supplement by prominently representing “Vitamin C 1,000 mg” and “60 Veg Capsules” on the front label, leading reasonable consumers to believe that each individual capsule contains 1,000 mg of vitamin C and that the bottle provides sixty full-strength servings. According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts panel—placed on a non-visible side of the bottle—discloses that the serving size is two capsules, meaning each capsule contains only 500 mg of vitamin C and the bottle contains only 30 servings, not sixty.
The complaint asserts that this labeling scheme constitutes misbranding under New York law because it falsely indicates the quantity, strength, and value of the product and impedes consumers’ ability to make meaningful price and value comparisons. Plaintiff alleges that consumers reasonably expect numerical capsule counts and prominently displayed nutrient amounts to correspond to a single capsule, particularly in vitamin supplements. Plaintiff further alleges that competitor brands disclose serving size, per-serving nutrient amounts, and supply duration clearly on the front label, demonstrating that Life Seasons could have easily avoided consumer confusion. Plaintiff claims he purchased the product in New York relying on the front-label representations, paid a price premium of approximately $19.29, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had he known it required two capsules to obtain the advertised vitamin C amount. 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 alleged price premium, injunctive relief requiring clear and accurate front-label disclosures regarding serving size and vitamin quantity, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.
26. Fried v. ALDI Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff: Albert Fried
Defendant: ALDI Foods, Inc.
Product Focus: Nature’s Nectar brand “100% Juice” beverages
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that ALDI falsely and misleadingly markets its Nature’s Nectar juice products as “100% Juice,” when the products allegedly contain added synthetic ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and are therefore not composed exclusively of fruit juice. According to the complaint, reasonable consumers understand “100% Juice” to mean a product made solely from the natural constituents of fruit juice, without added ingredients or nutritional fortification.
The complaint asserts that ALDI intentionally adds synthetically manufactured ascorbic acid, derived through industrial chemical processes, to increase the products’ Vitamin C content beyond naturally occurring levels found in fruit juice. Plaintiff alleges that this fortification materially alters the products’ composition and renders the “100% Juice” claim false and misleading. Although ALDI sometimes includes statements such as “from concentrate with added ingredient” or Vitamin C daily value callouts, Plaintiff contends these disclosures are contradictory and insufficient to cure the deception created by the unqualified “100% Juice” claim. Plaintiff alleges he purchased the products in California relying on the labeling, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had he known they were not pure juice. Causes of action include violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and breach of express and implied warranties.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “100% Juice” claims, corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
27. Amber Duke v. Philz Coffee, Inc.
Plaintiff: Amber Duke,
Defendant: Philz Coffee, Inc.
Product Focus Philz Coffee products packaged in K-Cup coffee pods
Summary
The lawsuit alleges that Philz Coffee falsely and misleadingly marketed its K-Cup coffee pod packaging as “recyclable,” including through the use of recycling symbols and instructions such as “Peel. Empty. Recycle.” According to the complaint, the K-Cup pods are not recyclable in California because recycling facilities do not accept or process them, and they fail to meet state recyclability requirements.
Plaintiff claims that reasonable consumers were misled into believing the products were environmentally sustainable and recyclable, causing them to pay a price premium. The complaint further alleges that Philz Coffee knew or should have known that the recyclability claims were false and deceptive, and that the representations violated California consumer protection and false advertising laws.
Prayer of Relief: Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged recyclability claims, corrective labeling and marketing, restitution and disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief the court deems proper.
28. Bell v. Gerber Products Company, et al.
Plaintiff: Natavis Bell
Defendants : Gerber Products Company; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Nestlé Enterprises S.A.; Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
Product Focus: Gerber-branded baby food products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly manufactured, marketed, and sold baby food products contaminated with toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and aluminum, without providing any warnings to consumers. According to the complaint, Defendants were aware—through internal testing, supplier data, scientific literature, and Congressional investigations—that their baby food products contained detectable and sometimes elevated levels of these metals, which are known to cause brain injury and neurodevelopmental harm in infants.
The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to properly source ingredients, set safe internal limits, consistently test finished products, or recall contaminated products, and instead continued selling baby foods despite knowing the risks. Plaintiff alleges that exposure to these products during infancy caused brain injury manifesting as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The complaint further alleges that Defendants marketed their baby foods as safe and nutritious while concealing the presence and dangers of toxic heavy metals, thereby depriving parents and caregivers of the ability to make informed purchasing decisions. Claims include strict products liability, failure to warn, manufacturing and design defects, and negligence.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring warnings and corrective measures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
29. Johnston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiffs: Bianca Johnston and Anatasia Chernov
Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation
Product Focus: Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that Costco falsely and misleadingly markets its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing “No Preservatives,” when the product allegedly contains sodium phosphate and carrageenan, ingredients that Plaintiffs contend function as preservatives. According to the complaint, Costco prominently displays the “No Preservatives” claim on large in-store signs near the rotisserie chicken display and on its website, creating the impression that the product contains no ingredients that preserve freshness, texture, flavor, or shelf life.
The complaint alleges that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are added specifically to stabilize texture, control pH, inhibit spoilage, and extend shelf life, thereby directly contradicting the “No Preservatives” representation. Plaintiffs assert that reasonable consumers rely on clear, front-of-sale claims rather than fine-print ingredient lists and would not expect a product advertised as preservative-free to contain ingredients performing preservative functions. Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations when purchasing the rotisserie chicken in California, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the product had they known it contained added preservatives. Claims are brought under Washington and California consumer protection and false advertising laws, as well as for unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and damages reflecting the alleged price premium, injunctive relief prohibiting misleading “no preservatives” claims, corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
30. Lopez v. Linus Technologies, Inc. d/b/a David Protein
Plaintiffs: Daniella Lopez; David Freifeld; Crystal Paterson
Defendant: Linus Technologies, Inc.
Product Focus: David Protein brand protein bars, including flavors
Summary:
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels and markets its David Protein bars by materially understating the calorie and total fat content displayed on the products’ front labels and Nutrition Facts Panels. According to the complaint, Defendant prominently represents that each bar contains 150 calories and approximately 2–2.5 grams of total fat per serving, leading reasonable consumers to believe the products are low-calorie and low-fat.
The lawsuit alleges that independent laboratory testing using FDA-recognized Atwater factors and AOAC fat analysis methods revealed that the products actually contain significantly higher calories and fat, with calorie counts allegedly exceeding label claims by approximately 78–83% and fat content exceeding label claims by approximately 368–400%. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant failed to comply with FDA labeling regulations, resulting in misbranded products and misleading nutrient content claims. Plaintiffs allege they relied on these representations when purchasing the products, paid a price premium, and would not have purchased—or would have paid less for—the products had the true calorie and fat content been disclosed. Claims include violations of multiple state consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranties, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring accurate calorie and fat disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
31. Jackson v. Gerber Products Company, et al.
Plaintiff: Sasha Jackson, on Behalf of K.J. A MINOR
Defendants: Gerber Products Company; Nestlé USA, Inc.; Nestlé S.A.; Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
Product Focus: Gerber-branded baby food products
Summary:
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly manufactured, marketed, and sold Gerber baby food products containing toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, without providing warnings to parents and caregivers. According to the complaint, Defendants were aware of heavy metal contamination through internal testing, ingredient sourcing data, and scientific research, yet continued selling baby food products without disclosing the risks associated with infant exposure to these metals.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to adequately test finished products, failed to set or enforce safe internal limits for heavy metals, and failed to remove contaminated products from the market. Plaintiff asserts that exposure to Gerber baby food products during infancy caused neurodevelopmental injury, including a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The complaint further alleges that Defendants marketed their baby food as nutritious and safe while concealing material safety risks, depriving consumers of the ability to make informed purchasing decisions. Claims asserted include strict products liability (failure to warn, manufacturing defect, and design defect) and negligence.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, medical monitoring, injunctive relief requiring adequate warnings and corrective actions, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
32. Ade v. Hard Eight Nutrition LLC d/b/a BulkSupplements.com
Plaintiff: Kemi Ade
Defendant: Hard Eight Nutrition LLC, doing business as BulkSupplements.com
Product Focus: Magnesium Glycinate Powder dietary supplement
Summary:
Plaintiff Kemi Ade brings this class action alleging that Hard Eight Nutrition LLC falsely labels and markets its Magnesium Glycinate Powder as containing 400 mg of magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate per serving, when, in reality, such a concentration is scientifically impossible given the chemical composition of magnesium glycinate. The complaint alleges that magnesium glycinate contains only approximately 14.1% elemental magnesium by mass, making it impossible for a 2,200 mg serving to deliver the advertised 400 mg of magnesium solely from that source. As a result, the product either contains significantly less magnesium than advertised or includes undisclosed sources of magnesium, such as magnesium oxide. Plaintiff alleges these misrepresentations violate federal and Maryland consumer protection laws, breach express and implied warranties, and mislead consumers who paid a premium for a highly bioavailable magnesium supplement.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed class, monetary damages including actual, statutory, punitive, and consequential damages, restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive labeling and marketing practices, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper.
33. Lauten et al. v. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Patricia Lauten and Melissa Furman
Defendant: Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.
Product Focus: Bolthouse Farms oat-milk–based beverage products
Summary:
Plaintiffs Patricia Lauten and Melissa Furman bring this class action alleging that Wm. Bolthouse Farms falsely and misleadingly labels certain oat-milk–based beverage products as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite the inclusion of dipotassium phosphate, a synthetically manufactured ingredient. According to the complaint, dipotassium phosphate is produced through chemical processes and is intentionally added to food products to extend shelf life by stabilizing emulsions, preventing protein curdling, and inhibiting bacterial growth. Plaintiffs allege that this ingredient meets the FDA’s definition of a chemical preservative and is therefore inconsistent with the “no artificial preservatives” representations prominently displayed on the products’ packaging.
Plaintiffs further allege that these representations were material to reasonable consumers who seek products free from artificial additives and were willing to pay a price premium for such claims. As a result of the allegedly deceptive labeling, consumers were misled into purchasing products they otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for, and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain. The complaint asserts violations of state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, and alleges that Defendant knowingly used the challenged labeling to increase consumer demand and sales while concealing the true nature of the products’ ingredients.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek certification of the proposed nationwide class and state sub-classes, recovery of actual and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief prohibiting deceptive “no artificial preservatives” labeling and marketing practices, corrective notice to consumers, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
34. Rodriguez v. Cove Drinks, Inc.
Plaintiff: Chris Rodriguez
Defendant: Cove Drinks, Inc.
Product Focus: Cove Probiotic Soda
Summary:
Plaintiff Chris Rodriguez brings this class action alleging that Cove Drinks, Inc. deceptively labels and markets its Cove Probiotic Soda products as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners,” despite the inclusion of stevia extract and/or erythritol. According to the complaint, both ingredients are industrially manufactured sweeteners that do not exist in their commercial form in nature and are added solely to replace sugar. The complaint alleges that Cove prominently displays the “No Artificial Sweeteners” claim on product packaging to convey that the beverages are more natural, less processed, and free from artificial additives.
Plaintiff further alleges that these representations are material to reasonable consumers who actively seek “clean label” products and are willing to pay a premium to avoid artificial sweeteners. As a result of the allegedly misleading labeling, consumers were induced to purchase products they otherwise would not have purchased or would have paid less for, and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain. The complaint asserts violations of California consumer protection statutes, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, as well as breach of express warranty.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged labeling and requiring corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
35. Clemente v. Jocko Fuel, LLC
Plaintiff: Sanaa Clemente
Defendant: Jocko Fuel, LLC
Product Focus: Jocko Mölk Protein Shake – Chocolate
Summary:
Plaintiff Sanaa Clemente brings this class action alleging that Jocko Fuel, LLC deceptively markets and sells its Jocko Mölk Protein Shake Chocolate product while failing to disclose that the product contains, or is at risk of containing, cadmium, a toxic heavy metal and known human carcinogen. According to the complaint, Defendant promotes the product as “clean fuel,” “built for performance,” and free from artificial ingredients, while representing that third-party testing ensures purity and safety. Plaintiff alleges these representations are misleading because the product packaging omits any disclosure that the product is contaminated with, or at risk of contamination from, cadmium.
Plaintiff further alleges that reasonable consumers rely on product labels to determine whether food products are safe for consumption and would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the product had they known it contained a harmful heavy metal. Independent testing allegedly confirmed the presence of cadmium in the product purchased by Plaintiff. As a result of Defendant’s alleged omissions and misleading marketing, consumers were deprived of the benefit of their bargain, paid a price premium, and purchased a product that was allegedly unsafe and valueless. The complaint asserts claims under New York consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, monetary and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and disclosure, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
36. Oliver v. Magnum Nutraceuticals Inc.
Plaintiff: Scott Oliver
Defendant: Magnum Nutraceuticals Inc.
Product Focus: Magnum Essentials Whey 100+ Whey Protein + Digestive Enzymes Protein Powder
Summary:
Plaintiff Scott Oliver brings this class action alleging that Magnum Nutraceuticals Inc. unlawfully and deceptively labels and markets its Magnum Essentials Whey 100+ protein powder by prominently claiming that the product contains 26 grams of protein per serving, while failing to comply with FDA labeling requirements applicable to protein content claims. According to the complaint, federal regulations require manufacturers who make front-label protein claims to disclose the corrected amount of protein per serving, expressed as a Percent Daily Value (%DV), calculated using the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). Plaintiff alleges that Magnum’s Nutrition Facts Panel omits this required disclosure, preventing consumers from determining how much usable protein the product actually provides.
Plaintiff further alleges that independent testing revealed the product contains less protein than advertised—approximately 24.95 grams per serving—rendering the front-label claim independently false and misleading. As a result of these omissions and misrepresentations, consumers were allegedly led to believe they were purchasing a higher-quality, nutritionally superior protein product and paid a price premium they otherwise would not have paid. The complaint asserts that Defendant’s labeling practices violate California consumer protection statutes, constitute false advertising and fraud, and resulted in unjust enrichment by enabling Defendant to profit from misleading protein claims.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged labeling practices, monetary and statutory damages as permitted by law, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
37. Kinman v. Saraya USA, Inc. d/b/a Lakanto
Plaintiff: Valerie Kinman
Defendant: Saraya USA, Inc.
Product Focus: Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener products
Summary:
Plaintiff Valerie Kinman brings this class action alleging that Saraya USA, Inc. deceptively labels and markets its Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener products as premium sweeteners derived from monk fruit, despite containing almost no monk fruit at all. According to the complaint, the product packaging prominently features the statement “MONKFRUIT SWEETENER,” monk imagery, and marketing narratives emphasizing monk fruit as a rare, ancient superfood. However, independent laboratory testing allegedly revealed that the products consist of approximately 98.85% erythritol and only 1.15% monk fruit extract, rendering the labeling misleading.
Plaintiff further alleges that the true composition of the products is material to reasonable consumers, particularly given that erythritol is a chemically processed sugar alcohol associated with potential health risks, while monk fruit is perceived as a natural, safer alternative. The complaint asserts that Defendant intentionally capitalized on consumer demand for monk fruit–based sweeteners to charge a price premium while omitting the true ingredient proportions. As a result, consumers allegedly purchased products they otherwise would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws, state consumer fraud statutes in multiple jurisdictions, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring truthful labeling and advertising, damages as permitted by law, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
38. Z.B. et al. v. 7Tabz Retail, LLC et al.
Plaintiffs: Z.B., T.M., and R.A.
Defendants: 7Tabz Retail, LLC; 7Tabz Distribution, LLC; Does 1–20
Product Focus: 7Tabz kratom products
Summary:
Plaintiffs bring this class action alleging that Defendants deceptively marketed and sold 7Tabz kratom products while failing to disclose material information regarding the products’ dangerous and addictive nature. According to the complaint, Defendants marketed the products using representations such as “pure extract” and “leaf extract,” prominently featuring plant imagery and natural descriptors that conveyed the products were natural, safe, and suitable for ingestion. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants omitted the fact that the products’ primary active ingredient, kratom—particularly 7-hydroxymitragynine—is a highly potent, psychoactive substance that produces opioid-like effects and poses serious risks of dependence, withdrawal, overdose-like toxicity, and death.
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to provide clear or meaningful warnings regarding these risks, despite knowing that kratom is unregulated, addictive, and associated with severe short- and long-term health consequences. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ labeling and marketing when purchasing the products and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had the risks been disclosed. As alleged, Plaintiffs experienced adverse physical and withdrawal symptoms after using and discontinuing the products. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and state subclasses and assert claims under California consumer protection statutes, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.
Prayer for Relief:
Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease the challenged practices and disclose material risks, restitution and disgorgement, damages and penalties as permitted by law, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Risk Reduction Tips for Food & Beverage Brands
- Match Front-Label Claims to Actual Ingredient Levels: If a product name or claim highlights a specific ingredient (e.g., monk fruit, honey, butter, agave), ensure it is present in a meaningful amount consistent with consumer expectations.
- Use “No Artificial” and “Natural” Claims Carefully: Products containing chemically processed ingredients may face scrutiny if labeled as “natural” or “no artificial,” even when ingredients are FDA-permitted.
- Review Overall Label Impressions, Not Just Ingredient Lists: Product names, imagery, and marketing narratives can create implied claims about quality, origin, or composition that must be accurate in context.
- Clearly Disclose Serving Size and Per-Unit Quantities Up Front: Prominent nutrient or unit claims should not obscure serving size realities or require consumers to rely on fine print.
- Substantiate Nutrient Content Claims with Testing and Compliance: Protein, vitamin, calorie, sodium, and fat claims should be verified through reliable testing and comply with all applicable FDA labeling requirements.
- Proactively Manage and Assess Contamination Risks: Heavy metals, chemical residues, and foreign objects continue to drive litigation; robust sourcing controls and testing programs are critical.
- Avoid Overstating Health, Safety, or Ethical Claims: Claims suggesting products are healthy, safe, or ethically sourced should be fully supported and not omit material facts that could mislead consumers.
