Filing Volume and Jurisdictional Concentration
Thirty-one class actions were filed in July 2026 across the food, beverage, dietary supplement, pet food, infant nutrition, and consumer products industries. New York and California remained the primary filing venues, while several nationwide actions targeted manufacturers headquartered outside those jurisdictions. Plaintiffs continued expanding beyond traditional food labeling disputes by combining consumer protection theories with product safety allegations, contamination claims, environmental marketing challenges, and scientifically driven attacks on nutrition and ingredient representations.
| Court | Case Count |
|---|---|
| California | 13 |
| New York | 11 |
| Federal Courts Outside CA & NY | 6 |
| Illinois | 1 |
Several litigation themes emerged during July. Plaintiffs devoted substantial attention to contamination-related lawsuits arising from recalls and foodborne illness outbreaks, while continuing to challenge clean-label claims involving preservatives, artificial flavors, and “100%” ingredient representations. Nutrition claims also remained active, with lawsuits attacking protein content, serving-size calculations, and digestible protein disclosures.
Significant Case Spotlights
Taylor Farms and Taco Bell: Contamination Litigation Extends Beyond Personal Injury
Multiple July complaints arising from the nationwide Cyclospora outbreak demonstrate how foodborne illness events continue generating consumer class actions focused on economic loss rather than personal injury. Plaintiffs allege that Taylor Farms and Taco Bell marketed food products as safe, wholesome, and fit for human consumption despite selling lettuce allegedly contaminated with Cyclospora cayetanensis. Rather than pursuing bodily injury claims, the complaints seek recovery for consumers who allegedly purchased products that were economically worthless because they were adulterated under federal law.
The litigation centers on alleged omissions instead of affirmative misrepresentations about ingredient composition. Plaintiffs contend that food safety representations, quality assurances, and merchantability created an expectation that the products complied with applicable safety standards while failing to disclose contamination risks associated with the nationwide outbreak. Similar theories also appear in July’s Salmonella litigation involving potato chips, mold allegations concerning chia seeds, and contamination claims against infant formula manufacturers.
Defense strategy in these cases increasingly depends on documenting supplier oversight, recall procedures, testing protocols, and communications following contamination events. Plaintiffs continue expanding recall-related litigation beyond consumers who became ill by asserting that all purchasers suffered economic injury because allegedly contaminated products were worth less than represented.
Verifiable Nutrition Claims Receive Greater Scientific Scrutiny
July produced another wave of lawsuits challenging measurable nutrition claims rather than ingredient identity alone. Plaintiffs allege that protein powders, fish oil supplements, protein snacks, superfood gummies, yogurt products, and low-sugar beverages overstate nutritional value through inaccurate testing, serving-size calculations, or failure to apply FDA-required methodologies. Defendants including Chobani, Qunol, RAW Sport Supplements, Halfday Tonics, The Only Bean, Beyond Better Foods, and Grüns each face allegations that laboratory testing or regulatory standards contradict prominent front-label nutrition claims.
These lawsuits rely heavily on objective measurements instead of consumer perception alone. Independent laboratory testing, FDA serving-size regulations, Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) requirements, and nutrient analyses form the foundation of many complaints. Plaintiffs increasingly argue that technically accurate Nutrition Facts panels cannot cure allegedly misleading front-label representations where consumers make purchasing decisions based primarily on nutrient claims displayed on the principal display panel.
Manufacturers promoting protein, omega-3 content, sugar reduction, fiber, vitamins, or other measurable nutritional benefits should expect continued scrutiny of substantiation, laboratory testing, and regulatory compliance. Plaintiffs are increasingly combining laboratory analyses with technical labeling regulations to challenge claims that previously attracted little litigation.
Flowers Foods: Recyclability Claims Continue to Expand
Plaintiffs allege that Flowers Foods deceptively markets plastic bread bags for Dave’s Killer Bread, Canyon Bakehouse, Nature’s Own, and related brands as recyclable through the use of recycling symbols and statements such as “PLEASE RECYCLE OR REUSE THIS BAG” and “THIS PACKAGE IS RECYCLABLE.” According to the complaint, the LDPE #4 plastic film used for the packaging is not accepted by most municipal curbside recycling programs and is frequently treated as contamination at material recovery facilities. Plaintiffs contend that these representations led environmentally conscious consumers to pay a premium for products they believed could be readily recycled.
Unlike traditional food labeling litigation, the alleged theory of harm centers on environmental marketing rather than product composition or ingredient disclosures. Plaintiffs argue that technically recyclable materials do not satisfy consumer expectations where the vast majority of local recycling systems cannot practically process the packaging. The lawsuit reflects continued reliance on consumer perception rather than technical compliance with material specifications.
Environmental marketing remains an active area of consumer class action litigation. Companies using recyclability, sustainability, or environmentally friendly claims should evaluate whether those representations reflect consumers’ real-world experience rather than laboratory or engineering capabilities alone. Marketing statements, packaging symbols, retailer messaging, and website disclosures should present a consistent and substantiated picture of a product’s environmental attributes before they become the focus of class action litigation.
Contamination and Food Safety Claims Drive July Filings
Contamination-related litigation became the defining trend during July. Multiple lawsuits challenged products allegedly contaminated with Salmonella, Cyclospora, mold, heavy metals, PFAS-related compounds, or Clostridium botulinum, while several complaints also questioned whether recall programs provided adequate notice and consumer remedies. Taylor Farms, Taco Bell, Nara Organics, Walmart, Costco, Driscoll’s, Champion Petfoods, and Utz all face allegations centered on undisclosed safety risks rather than traditional labeling disputes.
Several complaints rely on alleged omissions rather than affirmative false statements. Plaintiffs contend that consumers reasonably expect products marketed as safe, wholesome, premium, sustainable, or nutritionally complete to be free from contamination or undisclosed health risks. The alleged failure to disclose contamination becomes the primary theory of harm, even where labels accurately identify ingredients.
The expanding scope of these cases demonstrates that food safety litigation increasingly extends beyond recalls themselves. Plaintiffs frequently challenge manufacturers’ supplier oversight, testing practices, quality-control procedures, contamination monitoring, recall administration, and post-recall refund programs. Those allegations often broaden discovery well beyond product labeling into internal compliance systems and corporate knowledge.
Companies operating in fresh produce, infant nutrition, pet food, dietary supplements, and other high-risk categories should expect contamination allegations to remain a significant source of consumer class actions, particularly where recalls or public health investigations generate widespread media attention.
Clean Label Litigation Expands Beyond Citric Acid
Clean-label litigation remained one of the most active categories in July, although plaintiffs broadened their focus beyond citric acid alone. Multiple lawsuits challenged “No Artificial Preservatives,” “No Artificial Flavors,” “Naturally Flavored,” “Nothing Artificial,” “100% Apple Juice,” and similar representations involving citric acid, lactic acid, sodium citrate, mixed tocopherols, ascorbic acid, and other multifunctional ingredients. Kroger, Target, CVS, Cure, Huel, Unwell, Martinelli’s, Stop & Shop, Lidl, Walmart, and Hello Products all face variations of these allegations.
Rather than disputing the source of every ingredient, plaintiffs increasingly argue that manufacturing processes and functional behavior determine whether ingredients should be considered artificial. Industrial fermentation, chemical processing, purification, and preservative function appear repeatedly throughout the July complaints, reinforcing plaintiffs’ position that consumer expectations differ from regulatory ingredient classifications.
Several complaints also challenge “100%” representations by arguing that consumers interpret those statements as meaning the product contains only the named ingredient. Added vitamins, preservatives, or processing aids become central to plaintiffs’ theory that products marketed as “100% Apple Juice” or “100% Juice From Concentrate” create broader purity claims than manufacturers intend.
Clean-label litigation continues evolving toward broader consumer-perception theories that extend beyond any single ingredient. Manufacturers relying on natural, preservative-free, or purity messaging should evaluate both ingredient functionality and the overall impression created by product names, packaging, and advertising.
Detailed Monthly Litigation Index
July Case Tracker
1. Rachel Lumbra v. Utz Quality Foods LLC d/b/a Zapp’s and Dirty Potato Chips
Plaintiff: Rachel Lumbra
Defendant: Utz Quality Foods LLC d/b/a Zapp’s and Dirty Potato Chips
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. New York)
Product Focus: Zapp’s® and Dirty® potato chips
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Utz deceptively marketed and sold multiple Zapp’s® and Dirty® potato chip products without disclosing that they contained, or were at risk of containing, Salmonella, despite issuing a voluntary recall after testing allegedly confirmed contamination. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably relied on the products’ labeling and ingredient lists, which omitted any warning regarding contamination, and therefore purchased products they otherwise would not have bought or paid a premium to obtain. Plaintiff further alleges that the recall and refund process was inadequate because consumers were offered limited notice and replacement products instead of refunds. The lawsuit asserts violations of New York consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks certification of a statewide class, compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
2. Thea Zabnicki v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.
Plaintiff: Thea Zabnicki
Defendant: Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (D. Colorado)
Product Focus: ACANA® grain-free dog food products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Champion Petfoods falsely markets its ACANA® grain-free dog foods as “Biologically Appropriate,” nutritionally complete, and superior for canine health while failing to disclose alleged risks associated with grain-free formulations. The complaint contends that the products lack essential nutrients and increase the risk of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and heart failure in dogs, despite being promoted as premium nutrition. Plaintiff further alleges that her dog developed DCM and ultimately died after consuming the products. The lawsuit asserts that Defendant capitalized on consumers’ desire for healthier pet food while omitting material safety information. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised warnings and labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
3. Michel Lukas v. Lidl US LLC
Plaintiff: Michel Lukas
Defendant: Lidl US LLC
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
Product Focus: Fruit Cocktail in 100% Juice From Concentrate
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Lidl falsely markets its canned fruit cocktail as being packed in “100% Juice From Concentrate,” leading consumers to believe the product contains only fruit and fruit juice concentrate. The complaint asserts that the product also contains manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as a synthetic ingredient produced through industrial fermentation rather than derived from fruit. Plaintiff contends that the labeling misrepresents the product’s composition and allows Defendant to command a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged representations when making purchasing decisions. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
4. Robert Berlinger, et al. v. Driscoll’s, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Robert Berlinger, Robert Duxler, Francesca Hammersmith, Maria Khangi, Phylicia Washington, and Bianca Weins
Defendant: Driscoll’s, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Conventional Driscoll’s strawberries
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Driscoll’s deceptively markets its conventional strawberries as premium, safe, sustainably grown, and produced under rigorous food safety standards while failing to disclose the alleged presence or use of PFAS-related compounds and fluorinated pesticides. The complaint asserts that Defendant’s marketing emphasized environmental stewardship, sustainability, and product safety, leading consumers to believe the strawberries were free from harmful contaminants. Plaintiffs contend they relied on these representations and paid premium prices for products they otherwise would not have purchased. The lawsuit seeks certification of statewide consumer classes under multiple state consumer protection laws and requests damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief.
5. Alicia Shelly v. Proempire, LLC d/b/a Vitamatic
Plaintiff: Alicia Shelly
Defendant: Proempire, LLC d/b/a Vitamatic
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Vitamatic dietary supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Vitamatic deceptively labels several dietary supplements by prominently displaying dosage amounts that allegedly lead consumers to believe each gummy, capsule, or tablet contains the stated amount of the active ingredient. The complaint asserts that the advertised dosage can only be achieved by consuming multiple units, causing consumers to overestimate the potency and value of each serving. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s front-label marketing misrepresents the products’ true dosage while allowing premium pricing. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations when purchasing the supplements. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, corrective advertising, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
6. Howard Haut v. S. Martinelli & Company
Plaintiff: Howard Haut
Defendant: S. Martinelli & Company
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County
Product Focus: Martinelli’s 100% Apple Juice From U.S. Grown Fresh Apples
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Martinelli’s falsely markets its product as “100% Apple Juice From U.S. Grown Fresh Apples,” leading consumers to believe apple juice is the product’s sole ingredient. The complaint asserts that the ingredient list discloses added ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), which Plaintiff characterizes as a synthetic ingredient manufactured through industrial processes for preservation and fortification. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably interpret the “100% Apple Juice” representation to exclude additional non-apple ingredients and paid a premium based on that understanding. The lawsuit alleges violations of New York consumer protection laws and seeks certification of a statewide class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
7. Nicholis Palmier v. Walmart, Inc.
Plaintiff: Nicholis Palmier
Defendant: Walmart, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. Florida)
Product Focus: Great Value Organic Chia Seeds
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Walmart deceptively marketed its Great Value Organic Chia Seeds while failing to disclose that the product allegedly contained excessive levels of mold and yeast. The complaint relies on independent laboratory testing that purportedly found contamination levels substantially exceeding accepted industry standards, despite the product remaining within its stated shelf life. Plaintiff contends that Walmart omitted this material information while representing the chia seeds as safe, wholesome, and suitable for consumption, causing consumers to pay a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that purchasers would not have bought the product, or would have paid less, had the alleged contamination been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks nationwide and Florida class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief including a product recall, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief.
8. Jana Rabinowitz v. Chobani, LLC
Plaintiff: Jana Rabinowitz
Defendant: Chobani, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Chobani 32-ounce “20G Protein” yogurt products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Chobani deceptively markets certain yogurt products as containing “20G Protein” per serving by relying on an allegedly inflated serving size that exceeds the FDA’s standardized reference amount. The complaint asserts that, using the federally prescribed serving size, the products allegedly contain approximately 18 grams of protein rather than the advertised 20 grams. Plaintiff contends that Defendant intentionally increased the declared serving size to support the higher protein claim and attract health-conscious consumers willing to pay premium prices. The lawsuit further alleges that purchasers relied on these protein representations when selecting the products. Plaintiff seeks certification of nationwide and New York classes, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
9. Rachonda Robinson v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC
Plaintiff: Rachonda Robinson
Defendant: The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: Stop & Shop 100% Pure Apple Juice Frozen Concentrate
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Stop & Shop deceptively markets its frozen concentrate as “100% Pure Apple Juice” despite containing added ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), which Plaintiff characterizes as a synthetic ingredient used for preservation and fortification. The complaint asserts that reasonable consumers interpret “100% Pure Apple Juice” to mean the product consists exclusively of apple-derived ingredients and would not expect additional manufactured ingredients. Plaintiff contends that Defendant used this labeling to command a premium price while misrepresenting the product’s composition. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged representations when making purchasing decisions. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection statutes.
10. Riley Pragovich and Jaylene Alvarado v. Nara Organics, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Riley Pragovich and Jaylene Alvarado
Defendant: Nara Organics, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Nara Organics infant formula products
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Nara Organics deceptively marketed and sold infant formula products while failing to disclose that they allegedly contained, or were at risk of containing, Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium associated with infant botulism. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably believed the products were safe for infant consumption and that the contamination risk was omitted despite a subsequent FDA-announced recall. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant’s recall program was structured in a manner that limited consumers’ ability to obtain refunds. The lawsuit alleges that purchasers paid premium prices for products that were allegedly unsafe or worth substantially less than represented. Plaintiffs seek certification of nationwide, New York, and Illinois classes, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
11. William Whelan v. Heidelberg Group Inc.
Plaintiff: William Whelan
Defendant: Heidelberg Group Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County
Product Focus: Heidelberg Cracked Wheat Bread
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Heidelberg deceptively markets its bread as “Cracked Wheat,” leading consumers to believe cracked wheat is the primary grain ingredient. The complaint asserts that refined wheat flour is actually the predominant ingredient and that cracked wheat appears only in relatively small quantities, a conclusion Plaintiff contends is reinforced by the bread’s low fiber content. Plaintiff alleges that the front-label representation misstates the product’s composition and allows Defendant to charge a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations when purchasing the bread. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
12. Stephen Barton, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiffs: Stephen Barton, Daniel Levine, Sandi Morgan, Tucker Jaroll, Claire Schmitt, Anna Baltzer, and Randall Hartwright
Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (W.D. Washington)
Product Focus: Orgain Organic Protein Powder products sold by Costco
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Costco deceptively marketed Orgain Organic Protein Powder as providing “good, clean nutrition,” containing “quality ingredients,” and meeting higher safety standards while failing to disclose the alleged presence of toxic heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and arsenic. The complaint contends that Costco’s packaging, website, and marketing created the impression that the products were pure and free from harmful contaminants, leading consumers to pay premium prices. Plaintiffs further allege they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had the alleged contamination been disclosed. The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide and multiple state subclasses, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief.
13. Laura Willis Albrigo v. Quten Research Institute, LLC
Plaintiff: Laura Willis Albrigo
Defendant: Quten Research Institute, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. California)
Product Focus: Qunol Ultra Omega-3 Fish Oil dietary supplement
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Quten Research Institute falsely markets its fish oil supplement by representing that each serving contains 1,000 mg of omega-3 fatty acids when independent laboratory testing allegedly found only approximately 404 mg per serving. The complaint asserts that omega-3 content is the primary reason consumers purchase fish oil supplements and that the alleged discrepancy materially affects the product’s value. Plaintiff contends that Defendant used these representations to command premium pricing while misrepresenting the supplement’s potency. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged labeling when making purchasing decisions. Plaintiff seeks certification of a California class, damages, restitution, corrective advertising, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
14. Regina Pellegrino v. Trader Joe’s Company
Plaintiff: Regina Pellegrino
Defendant: Trader Joe’s Company
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: Trader Joe’s Sliced Cracked Wheat Sourdough Bread
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe’s deceptively markets its bread as “Sliced Cracked Wheat Sourdough Bread,” leading consumers to believe cracked wheat is a primary grain ingredient when enriched refined flour is actually predominant. The complaint asserts that the relatively low fiber content further demonstrates that only a limited amount of cracked wheat is present. Plaintiff contends that the product’s labeling misrepresents its composition and allows Defendant to charge premium prices. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged representations and would have paid less had the true formulation been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
15. Daniel Ruchman v. Raw Sport Supplement Company, LLC
Plaintiff: Daniel Ruchman
Defendant: Raw Sport Supplement Company, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: RAW Isolate Protein Shakes
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Raw Sport falsely advertises its RAW Isolate Protein Shakes as containing 30 grams of protein per bottle when independent laboratory testing allegedly found protein levels approximately 7% to 12% below the labeled amount. The complaint asserts that accurate protein content is material to consumers purchasing protein beverages and that the alleged shortfall renders the products misbranded under applicable labeling regulations. Plaintiff contends that Defendant charged premium prices based on overstated protein claims and that consumers relied on those representations when making purchasing decisions. The lawsuit seeks certification of a California class, compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
16. Genesia Ting v. The Only Bean, LLC
Plaintiff: Genesia Ting
Defendant: The Only Bean, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: The Only Bean Crunchy Dry Roasted Edamame snacks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that The Only Bean deceptively markets its roasted edamame snacks as a “High Protein Supersnack” containing “11G Protein” while failing to disclose the corrected usable protein value required under FDA regulations. The complaint asserts that the products’ protein quality should be evaluated using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), which allegedly results in lower digestible protein than consumers would reasonably expect from the front-label claim. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s labeling overstates the nutritional value of the snacks and enabled premium pricing. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these protein claims when purchasing the products. Plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
17. Miriam Perez v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Miriam Perez
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: Good & Gather Shells & Aged Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its Good & Gather Shells & Aged Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” despite the inclusion of lactic acid powder, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificially manufactured preservative produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing. The complaint asserts that reasonable consumers understand the front-label claim to mean the product contains no artificial ingredients that function as preservatives and are willing to pay a premium for products bearing such representations. Plaintiff contends that the preservative function of lactic acid powder is not adequately disclosed and that the labeling misrepresents the product’s composition. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid more than they otherwise would have. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief under New York consumer protection laws.
18. Maria Amaya v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Maria Amaya
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. California)
Product Focus: Kindfull dry dog and cat food products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its Kindfull pet food products as “Natural” and containing “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives,” despite listing citric acid and mixed tocopherols among the ingredients. The complaint asserts that these ingredients are chemically manufactured preservatives that contradict the products’ natural and preservative-free representations. Plaintiff contends that consumers seeking natural pet food reasonably rely on these claims and pay premium prices based on the belief that the products contain only natural ingredients. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendant’s labeling and advertising misrepresent the products’ true composition. Plaintiff seeks certification of a California class, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
19. Tuennerman, et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et al.
Plaintiffs: Elyse Tuennerman, Justin Alicea, Brooke Trudeau, and Jordan Nelson
Defendants: Flowers Foods, Inc.; Flowers Bakeries, LLC; Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc.; Canyon Bakehouse, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (D. Arizona)
Product Focus: Packaged bakery products
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants falsely market the plastic packaging used for Dave’s Killer Bread, Canyon Bakehouse, Nature’s Own, and related bakery products as recyclable by displaying recycling symbols and statements encouraging consumers to recycle the bags. The complaint asserts that the LDPE plastic film used in the packaging is not accepted by most curbside recycling programs and is frequently treated as contamination by recycling facilities. Plaintiffs contend that consumers relied on these environmental claims when purchasing the products and paid a premium based on their perceived sustainability. The lawsuit seeks certification of Arizona and California classes, restitution, damages, disgorgement, corrective advertising, declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the challenged recyclability claims, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
20. Null v. Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. d/b/a Taylor Farms, et al.
Plaintiff: Lawrence Null
Defendants: Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. d/b/a Taylor Farms; Taco Bell Corp.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Taco Bell menu items and Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Taylor Farms and Taco Bell sold food products containing iceberg lettuce contaminated with Cyclospora, rendering the products adulterated, unmerchantable, and unfit for human consumption. The complaint asserts that the contaminated lettuce was linked by federal health authorities to the 2026 nationwide cyclosporiasis outbreak and that consumers unknowingly purchased products that were economically worthless because of the contamination. Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to disclose the contamination risk while marketing the food as safe and wholesome. The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide and West Virginia classes, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief based on negligence, consumer protection, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.
21. Rene Strano v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Rene Strano
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County
Product Focus: Good & Gather Plain Whipped Cream Cheese Spread
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its Good & Gather Plain Whipped Cream Cheese Spread as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives or Synthetic Colors,” despite including lactic acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificially manufactured preservative. The complaint asserts that lactic acid is produced through industrial processing and functions to inhibit microbial growth, extend shelf life, and prevent spoilage. Plaintiff contends that reasonable consumers rely on the preservative-free representation when purchasing food products and paid a premium because of the challenged labeling. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendant failed to disclose the true nature and function of the ingredient. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief under New York consumer protection laws.
22. Robert Kluge v. Halfday Tonics Inc.
Plaintiff: Robert Kluge
Defendant: Halfday Tonics Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Halfday Prebiotic Iced Tea beverages
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Halfday falsely markets its prebiotic iced tea beverages as containing only 3 to 5 grams of sugar per can, while independent laboratory testing allegedly found substantially higher sugar levels in certain products. The complaint asserts that Halfday promoted the beverages as healthier, low-sugar alternatives to traditional teas and soft drinks, causing consumers to rely on those representations and pay premium prices. Plaintiff contends that the inaccurate sugar disclosures deprived consumers of the benefit of their bargain and materially influenced purchasing decisions. The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide and New York classes, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief based on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, warranty, unjust enrichment, and New York consumer protection claims.
23. Stephen Bradshaw v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.
Plaintiff: Stephen Bradshaw
Defendant: CVS Pharmacy Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County
Product Focus: CVS Health Immunity Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that CVS falsely markets its Immunity Gummies as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” despite listing sodium citrate, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificially manufactured preservative that regulates pH, inhibits microbial growth, and extends shelf life. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret the labeling to mean the product contains no artificial preservative ingredients and pay a premium based on that representation. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to disclose the ingredient’s preservative function and misled consumers seeking preservative-free dietary supplements. The lawsuit seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
24. Remee Tolbert v. Cure Inc.
Plaintiff: Remee Tolbert
Defendant: Cure Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County
Product Focus: Cure Hydration Watermelon Electrolyte Drink Mix
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Cure falsely markets its Watermelon Electrolyte Drink Mix as containing “No Artificial or Synthetic: Flavors, Sweeteners, Preservatives, Colors & Dyes,” despite the inclusion of manufactured citric acid. The complaint asserts that citric acid functions as a preservative by lowering pH, preventing spoilage, inhibiting microbial growth, and extending shelf life, making the challenged representation misleading. Plaintiff contends that consumers seeking products free from artificial preservatives relied on these claims and paid a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that the labeling violates New York consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks certification of a New York class, actual damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
25. Victor Granados and Kait Gelbspan v. Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc.
Plaintiffs: Victor Granados and Kait Gelbspan
Defendant: Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Taylor Farms lettuce, leafy greens, and packaged salad products
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Taylor Fresh Foods marketed lettuce and packaged salad products as safe, healthy, and fit for human consumption while failing to disclose that they were contaminated, or at risk of contamination, with Cyclospora cayetanensis during the 2026 outbreak. The complaint contends that consumers relied on Defendant’s food safety representations and paid premium prices for products they otherwise would not have purchased. Plaintiffs further allege that Taylor Farms failed to prevent or disclose the contamination despite extensive food safety protocols. The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide, California, and New York classes, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
26. Caitlin Darr v. Unwell Products LLC
Plaintiff: Caitlin Darr
Defendant: Unwell Products LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Unwell beverage products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Unwell falsely markets its beverage products as containing “No Artificial Flavors,” “Flavored with Other Natural Flavors,” and “flavors and colors from only natural sources,” despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid and sodium citrate that function as artificial flavoring ingredients. The complaint asserts that these representations appeared across product packaging, online marketplaces, retail websites, and social media campaigns, causing consumers to pay premium prices. Plaintiff contends that the products’ labeling and advertising misrepresent their true ingredient composition. The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
27. Esther Scott v. Gruns Nutrition, Inc.
Plaintiff: Esther Scott
Defendant: Gruns Nutrition, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Grüns Superfoods Greens Gummies dietary supplement
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Gruns Nutrition falsely markets its Superfoods Greens Gummies as providing comprehensive daily nutrition while overstating their fiber and niacin content. The complaint asserts that independent laboratory testing found lower amounts of dietary fiber and niacin than represented on the labeling and also challenges Defendant’s claims regarding third-party testing and its proprietary nutrient blend. Plaintiff contends that these representations misled consumers into believing the product offered greater nutritional benefits than it actually did. The lawsuit seeks class certification, restitution, damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief under California consumer protection laws.
28. Taylor Farms & Taco Bell Cyclospora Lettuce Class Action
Plaintiffs: Lawrence Null and Danielle Long
Defendants: Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc. d/b/a Taylor Farms; Taco Bell Corp.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Taco Bell menu items containing Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Taylor Farms and Taco Bell sold food products containing Cyclospora-contaminated iceberg lettuce during the 2026 nationwide outbreak. The complaint asserts that the contaminated products were adulterated, unfit for human consumption, and economically worthless, even where consumers did not suffer physical injury. Plaintiffs contend that they purchased food represented as wholesome and safe but instead received products affected by contamination. The lawsuit seeks class certification, restitution, damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief based on consumer protection, negligence, implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.
29. Mario Margiotta v. Huel Inc.
Plaintiff: Mario Margiotta
Defendant: Huel Inc.
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Product Focus: Huel Daily Greens drink products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Huel falsely markets its Daily Greens beverages as “Naturally Flavored,” “No Artificial Flavors,” and “0 Artificial Flavors,” despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid that functions as an artificial flavoring ingredient. The complaint asserts that consumers relied on these natural-flavor representations when purchasing the products and paid a premium based on the belief that they contained only natural flavoring ingredients. Plaintiff contends that the challenged labeling and advertising materially misrepresent the products’ composition. The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide and California classes, restitution, damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
30. Roya Mir v. Beyond Better Foods LLC
Plaintiff: Roya Mir
Defendant: Beyond Better Foods, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. California)
Product Focus: Bada Bean Bada Boom Plant-Based Protein Crunchy Roasted Broad Bean Snacks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Beyond Better Foods falsely markets its snacks by advertising “6g Plant-Based Protein” while overstating the products’ usable protein content. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to apply the FDA-required Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) methodology, which allegedly reduces the digestible protein value because the products’ sole protein source is fava beans. Plaintiff contends that consumers relied on the protein claims and paid premium prices for products providing less usable protein than represented. The lawsuit seeks class certification, restitution, damages, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
31. Tiera Nance v. The Kroger Co.
Plaintiff: Tiera Nance
Defendant: The Kroger Co.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Kroger private-label food products marketed as containing “No Preservatives” or “No Artificial Preservatives”
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Kroger falsely markets numerous private-label food products as containing “No Preservatives” or “No Artificial Preservatives” despite the presence of ingredients such as citric acid, lactic acid, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate, natamycin, disodium phosphate, and sodium acid pyrophosphate, which Plaintiff alleges function as preservatives. The complaint contends that consumers seeking preservative-free foods reasonably rely on these representations and pay premium prices because they believe the products are healthier than competing alternatives. Plaintiff further alleges that Kroger’s labeling misrepresents the products’ true ingredient composition. The lawsuit seeks certification of a California class, restitution, damages, injunctive relief requiring Kroger to discontinue the challenged labeling practices, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
strategic by design: Juris Law Group Defense and Compliance
July’s filings demonstrate that food and beverage class actions continue expanding beyond traditional labeling disputes into scientifically driven challenges involving contamination, nutritional substantiation, environmental marketing, and product safety. Effective class action defense increasingly requires coordination among regulatory, scientific, quality assurance, marketing, and litigation teams before claims reach the courtroom.
Juris Law Group represents food, beverage, dietary supplement, pet food, and consumer product companies in class action defense, helping brands evaluate litigation exposure before marketing claims become consumer lawsuits. Our attorneys conduct pre-litigation label and advertising reviews, assess claim substantiation, and advise clients on product launches, reformulations, recalls, and emerging litigation risks affecting CPG companies.
Our class action defense attorneys regularly evaluate evolving plaintiff theories involving contamination disclosures, nutrient-content claims, clean-label marketing, sustainability representations, and product efficacy. By monitoring developing litigation trends across the industry, we help clients strengthen substantiation, improve compliance practices, and mitigate food labeling litigation risk before disputes escalate into class actions.
Technical Risk Mitigation and Label Compliance
Contamination prevention remains a primary litigation concern following the wave of Salmonella, Cyclospora, mold, heavy metal, and infant formula cases filed during July. Testing protocols, supplier qualification programs, environmental monitoring, recall readiness, and internal documentation should be reviewed together to ensure that food safety practices align with consumer-facing representations regarding product quality and safety.
Nutrition claims warrant continued scrutiny where products promote measurable attributes such as protein content, omega-3 levels, sugar content, fiber, vitamin potency, or other quantitative benefits. Laboratory testing, serving-size calculations, and applicable FDA requirements should support both front-of-pack messaging and Nutrition Facts disclosures before products enter the marketplace.
Clean-label representations remain vulnerable when ingredient functionality differs from consumer expectations. Claims such as “No Artificial Preservatives,” “No Artificial Flavors,” “Naturally Flavored,” “Nothing Artificial,” and “100%” product descriptions should be evaluated alongside ingredient sourcing, manufacturing processes, and the role each ingredient performs within the finished product.
Environmental and sustainability claims also continue attracting increased scrutiny. Recyclability statements, sustainable growing practices, food safety assurances, and environmental stewardship messaging should be supported by product-specific evidence and supply chain documentation that can withstand challenges regarding consumer interpretation.
Marketing campaigns extending across packaging, websites, retailer listings, influencer content, and social media should be reviewed as a single body of advertising rather than as isolated claims. Several July complaints rely on the cumulative impression created across multiple marketing channels, particularly where product names, imagery, or promotional language allegedly communicate broader health, purity, or performance benefits than the underlying evidence supports.
Scientific substantiation remains one of the strongest defenses against emerging consumer class actions. Internal documentation supporting efficacy claims, nutritional representations, environmental marketing, contaminant testing, and product safety can significantly reduce litigation exposure when plaintiffs challenge the accuracy or scope of consumer-facing statements.
