Filing Volume and Jurisdictional Concentration
Thirty-two class actions were filed in March 2026, reinforcing ongoing consumer product class action trends and heightened food labeling litigation risk for CPG brands.
| Court | Case Count |
|---|---|
| New York (State + Federal) | 11 |
| California (State + Federal) | 9 |
| Illinois (NDIL) | 1 |
| Texas | 0 |
Plaintiffs concentrated filings in New York and California, signaling continued exposure for food and beverage manufacturers operating nationally. Litigation risks for food and beverage brands remain closely tied to labeling language, ingredient disclosures, and marketing claims that may create consumer perception gaps.
Significant Case Spotlights
Zambia Ford v. Kraft Heinz: Addictive Design and Public Nuisance
Plaintiffs allege a coordinated scheme among major packaged food and beverage manufacturers to engineer ultra-processed foods with addictive properties.
Kraft Heinz and other defendants face claims framed around public health deception, with allegations tied to product formulation and the targeting of children. Plaintiffs position the case as a large-scale consumer product class action challenging industry-wide conduct and long-term health impacts.
Defense Observations
Defense strategies can focus on challenging causation between product formulation and alleged long-term health outcomes, particularly where multiple lifestyle factors contribute to obesity and related conditions. Federal preemption arguments tied to FDA-regulated ingredient disclosures and labeling requirements remain available. Conspiracy allegations can also be contested by emphasizing the absence of concrete evidence showing coordinated conduct among competitors.
Evan Eichhorn v. MNG 2005: Failure to Disclose Addiction Risk
Plaintiffs allege kratom beverages create opioid-like dependency risks without adequate warnings to consumers.
MNG 2005 faces claims centered on omission of material safety disclosures, raising broader compliance concerns for dietary supplement companies and beverage brands marketing wellness products. There is focus on repeated consumption patterns and addiction risk tied to how the product is positioned to consumers.
Defense Observations
Defense arguments may challenge the scientific consensus regarding kratom’s pharmacological effects and whether it should be characterized as interacting with opioid receptors in a manner requiring warnings. The absence of a regulatory framework mandating addiction disclosures for such products provides an additional line of argument. Individualized reliance and causation may also be disputed, particularly where consumption levels vary significantly among users.
The “Natural” Claim Surge: Technical Challenges to Citric Acid
Plaintiffs filed nine actions targeting “natural” and “no artificial preservatives” claims across snack, beverage, and supplement products.
Country Crock, Sensible Portions, Target (ACV Gummies), and Positive Hydration appear among the brands facing allegations that citric acid functions as a synthetic preservative despite clean label positioning. Plaintiffs argue that industrial fermentation processes used to produce citric acid render it artificial, creating tension with marketing claims.
Plaintiffs rely on a “function over intent” theory, asserting that ingredient behavior—such as extending shelf life—determines whether a label is misleading regardless of formulation intent. Food labeling litigation continues to focus on these technical ingredient distinctions, increasing label risk for food manufacturers and packaged food companies relying on “natural,” “no artificial preservatives,” and similar claims.
food and beverage class actions, march 2026
March Case Tracker
1. Chris Rodriguez v. Cove Drinks, Inc.
Plaintiff: Chris Rodriguez
Defendant: Cove Drinks, Inc.
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Probiotic soda
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Cove Drinks falsely markets its beverages as containing “No Artificial Sweeteners,” leading consumers to believe the products are free from non-nutritive sweeteners. The complaint asserts that the drinks contain stevia extract and erythritol, which are characterized as highly processed ingredients functioning similarly to artificial sweeteners. Plaintiff contends this contradicts the product’s “clean label” positioning and misleads consumers seeking natural formulations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief to stop the labeling and require corrective advertising, as well as damages, attorneys’ fees, and interest.
2. Emma Simon v. Mulvadi Corporation
Plaintiff: Emma Simon
Defendant: Mulvadi Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (W.D. Pennsylvania)
Product Focus: Kona coffee
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its coffee as “100% Kona Coffee,” implying it consists entirely of premium beans from Hawaii. The complaint asserts that the product contains little to no authentic Kona coffee and instead uses lower-quality beans, supported by scientific testing. Plaintiff contends that the labeling misleads consumers and allows Defendant to charge a premium. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations when purchasing the product. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief to stop the alleged deceptive practices, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. Evan Eichhorn v. MNG 2005, Inc.
Plaintiff: Evan Eichhorn
Defendant: MNG 2005, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. Pennsylvania)
Product Focus: Kratom beverages
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant markets kratom beverages as safe and beneficial while failing to disclose serious health risks, including addiction. The complaint asserts that the products contain substances that interact with opioid receptors but are marketed as supplements for daily use and performance. Plaintiff contends that labeling emphasizes benefits while omitting material risk information. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff became addicted and suffered economic harm. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring warnings and labeling changes, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
4. Lori Turk v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Lori Turk
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Orange County)
Product Focus: Organic macaroni & cheese
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its product as containing “no artificial preservatives,” implying the absence of synthetic additives. The complaint asserts that the product includes sodium phosphate, which functions as a preservative by stabilizing and extending shelf life. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts consumer expectations and misrepresents the product’s composition. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claim and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages representing the price premium, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.
5. Maria Livingston v. Naked Whey, Inc.
Plaintiff: Maria Livingston
Defendant: Naked Whey, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Vegan protein powders
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant markets its protein powders as pure and free from harmful substances through “clean label” claims. The complaint asserts that the products contain measurable levels of lead, which are not disclosed to consumers. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the brand’s messaging and misleads consumers about safety and quality. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and interest.
6. Nicole Flick v. M.I. Industries, Inc.
Plaintiff: Nicole Flick
Defendant: M.I. Industries, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. California)
Product Focus: Dog food
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its dog food as free from artificial preservatives through claims such as “Nothing Artificial.” The complaint asserts that the products contain synthetic preservatives like citric acid and tocopherols. Plaintiff contends that these ingredients contradict the labeling and mislead consumers seeking natural pet food. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and interest.
7. Samantha Jones v. Hain Celestial Group
Plaintiff: Samantha Jones
Defendant: Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Jurisdiction: Missouri Circuit Court
Product Focus: Veggie snacks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets snack products as containing “No Artificial Preservatives.” The complaint asserts that the products include citric acid, which allegedly functions as a preservative. Plaintiff contends that the labeling creates a misleading discrepancy between front-label claims and actual ingredients. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
8. Sarah Renzetti v. Flora Food US Inc.
Plaintiff: Sarah Renzetti
Defendant: Flora Food US Inc.
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court (Kings County)
Product Focus: Vegetable oil spread
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its spread as containing “No Artificial Preservatives or Flavors.” The complaint asserts that the product contains citric acid, which allegedly functions as a preservative. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts consumer expectations and misrepresents the product. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claims and paid a premium. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
9. Simon Oh v. UTZ Quality Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Simon Oh
Defendant: UTZ Quality Foods, LLC
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (San Diego County)
Product Focus: Snack foods
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses nonfunctional slack-fill packaging to mislead consumers about product quantity. The complaint asserts that the packaging contains excessive empty space without justification. Plaintiff contends that consumers rely on package size as an indicator of value and are misled into overpaying. The lawsuit further alleges violations of consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief requiring packaging changes, restitution, damages, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
10. Zambia Ford v. Major Food Manufacturers
Plaintiff: Zambia Ford
Defendants: Multiple companies
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. Arkansas)
Product Focus: Ultra-processed foods
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that major food companies engaged in a coordinated scheme to design and market addictive ultra-processed foods while concealing health risks. The complaint asserts that products were engineered to drive overconsumption and targeted vulnerable populations. Plaintiff contends that misleading marketing and failure to warn caused serious health consequences. The lawsuit further alleges conspiracy and deceptive practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, statutory, and treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.
11. Anna Diaz v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Anna Diaz
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County
Product Focus: Apple cider vinegar gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its apple cider vinegar gummies as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” leading consumers to believe the product is free from synthetic preservation agents. The complaint asserts that the gummies contain citric acid, which allegedly functions as a preservative by stabilizing pH and extending shelf life. Plaintiff contends that commercially produced citric acid is a synthetic ingredient inconsistent with consumer expectations of natural products. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on this representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of New York consumers, recovery of actual damages based on the alleged price premium, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
12. Ashley Conger v. Walmart Inc.
Plaintiff: Ashley Conger
Defendant: Walmart Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County
Product Focus: Mixed berry glucose gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Walmart falsely markets its glucose gummies as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” implying the absence of synthetic additives. The complaint asserts that the product contains citric acid, which allegedly functions as a preservative and is produced through industrial processes. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the labeling and misleads consumers seeking natural products. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, recovery of actual damages based on the alleged price premium, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
13. Charisse Adams v. Walgreen Co.
Plaintiff: Charisse Adams
Defendant: Walgreen Co.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County
Product Focus: Apple cider vinegar gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Walgreens falsely markets its gummies as containing “No Artificial Preservatives,” despite including citric acid. The complaint asserts that citric acid is a synthetic ingredient capable of preserving shelf life and stability. Plaintiff contends that consumers interpret the claim to exclude such ingredients, making the labeling misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, recovery of actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any additional relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
14. Kenneth M. Mollins v. Profit Cookers LLC
Plaintiff: Kenneth M. Mollins
Defendant: Profit Cookers LLC
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County
Product Focus: Virtual restaurant food brands
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant operates deceptive “virtual restaurant” brands that appear to be independent establishments but are actually prepared in undisclosed facilities. The complaint asserts that consumers are misled into believing they are ordering from standalone restaurants. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresentation affects purchasing decisions and deprives consumers of material information. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers would not have purchased the food had they known the true source. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring disclosure of the true source, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other appropriate relief.
15. Michael Gonzales v. Earth to Kids, Inc.
Plaintiff: Michael Gonzales
Defendant: Earth to Kids, Inc.
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court, Ventura County
Product Focus: Protein pasta
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses oversized packaging containing nonfunctional slack-fill to mislead consumers about product quantity. The complaint asserts that the packaging is significantly underfilled and serves no legitimate purpose. Plaintiff contends that consumers rely on package size as an indicator of value and are misled into overpaying. The lawsuit further alleges that standard disclosures do not correct the deception. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief requiring packaging changes, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
16. Mina Maiman v. Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc.
Plaintiff: Mina Maiman
Defendant: Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Product Focus: Grain-free dog food
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets grain-free dog food as providing complete and balanced nutrition without disclosing potential health risks. The complaint asserts that such diets may be associated with serious conditions, including heart disease in dogs. Plaintiff contends that the labeling omits material risk information and misleads consumers seeking healthy pet food. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
17. Andrew Bellomo v. Topco Associates LLC
Plaintiff: Andrew Bellomo
Defendant: Topco Associates LLC
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
Product Focus: Vitamin D3 gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misleadingly labels its products as containing “Certified Sustainable Palm Oil” through RSPO certification. The complaint asserts that the certification does not guarantee full sustainability and may include non-certified sources. Plaintiff contends that the labeling creates a false impression of environmental responsibility. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages based on the price premium, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
18. Gabriella Proxmire v. Craftmix, Inc.
Plaintiff: Gabriella Proxmire
Defendant: Craftmix, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Product Focus: Powdered drink mixes
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its drink mixes as “All Natural,” leading consumers to expect only natural ingredients. The complaint asserts that the products contain synthetic ingredients such as citric acid and sodium benzoate. Plaintiff contends that these ingredients contradict the natural labeling claims. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, damages including statutory and punitive where applicable, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
19. Mark Gonzalez v. Vanilla Chip LLC
Plaintiff: Mark Gonzalez
Defendant: Vanilla Chip LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Product Focus: Children’s growth supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets supplements as supporting children’s growth and development. The complaint asserts that these claims are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. Plaintiff contends that the underlying studies do not demonstrate meaningful growth benefits and omit material limitations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, monetary and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
20. Steven A. Cabrera v. Martin & Pleasance North America, Inc.
Plaintiff: Steven A. Cabrera
Defendant: Martin & Pleasance North America, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Product Focus: Ener-C drink mixes
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets its products as “All Natural,” implying the absence of synthetic ingredients. The complaint asserts that the products contain DL-malic acid, a synthetic compound. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the natural labeling claim and misleads consumers. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, declaratory relief, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
21. Sue Kim v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Sue Kim
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Product Focus: Tuna products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets tuna products as “sustainably caught,” suggesting environmentally responsible sourcing. The complaint asserts that the fishing methods used harm marine ecosystems and wildlife. Plaintiff contends that the sustainability claims are misleading and unsupported. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, monetary damages including statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
22. Tiffany Coleman v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Tiffany Coleman
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
Product Focus: Hair, Skin & Nails gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresents its use of “Certified Sustainable Palm Oil” through RSPO certification labeling. The complaint asserts that the certification allows mixing sustainable and non-sustainable sources without disclosure. Plaintiff contends that this creates a misleading impression of environmental responsibility. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
23. Bridget Mikha v. Sadaf Foods
Plaintiff: Bridget Mikha & Brianne Butcher
Defendant: Soofer Co., Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Product Focus: Olive oil blend
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely markets its product as containing olive oil. The complaint asserts that testing shows the product contains no olive oil and consists entirely of soybean oil. Plaintiffs contend that this misrepresents the product’s composition and quality. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
24. Fred Bernacchi v. Del-Trio Limited
Plaintiff: Fred Bernacchi
Defendant: Del-Trio Limited
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Product Focus: Extra virgin olive oil
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets a product as extra virgin olive oil. The complaint asserts that testing shows the product is largely composed of rapeseed oil. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents the product’s identity and violates labeling standards. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
25. James Vignogna v. Dollar General Corporation
Plaintiff: James Vignogna
Defendant: Dollar General Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County
Product Focus: Yogurt-covered pretzels
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets pretzels as “yogurt covered,” implying meaningful yogurt content. The complaint asserts that the coating is primarily composed of sugar and oils with minimal yogurt. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents the product’s composition and nutritional value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
26. Juan Martinez v. The Gourmet Factory, Inc.
Plaintiff: Juan Martinez & Maria Gabriela Arauzo
Defendant: The Gourmet Factory, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Product Focus: Olive oil
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely markets products as pure olive oil. The complaint asserts that testing shows the products are adulterated with olive pomace oil. Plaintiffs contend that this contradicts labeling and industry standards. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
27. Kimberly Taylor v. Belli Welli Inc.
Plaintiff: Kimberly Taylor
Defendant: Belli Welli Inc.
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court, Sacramento County
Product Focus: Dietary supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets products as containing “no artificial flavors.” The complaint asserts that the products contain citric acid, which is characterized as an artificial flavoring ingredient. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts consumer expectations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the claim and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, monetary damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
28. Megan Aguilar v. The Dodo Group
Plaintiff: Megan Aguilar
Defendant: The Dodo Group
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
Product Focus: “Dubai” chocolate
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets chocolate products as originating from Dubai. The complaint asserts that the products are manufactured elsewhere and lack authentic characteristics. Plaintiff contends that the labeling exploits consumer demand for premium imported goods. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
29. Melissa Nelson v. Acme Markets Inc.
Plaintiff: Melissa Nelson
Defendant: Acme Markets Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: Yogurt pretzels
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets pretzels as yogurt-coated despite minimal yogurt content. The complaint asserts that the coating is primarily composed of sugar and vegetable oils. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents the product’s composition and quality. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
30. Michelle Garza v. Positive Beverage, LLC
Plaintiff: Michelle Garza
Defendant: Positive Beverage, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Product Focus: Hydration beverages
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets beverages as containing no artificial preservatives. The complaint asserts that the products contain manufactured citric acid functioning as a preservative. Plaintiff contends that this contradicts the labeling claims. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the representation and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
31. Ramiz Naoum v. Smart Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Ramiz Naoum & Dunia Polis
Defendant: Smart Foods, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Product Focus: Oil blend
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely markets a product as containing olive oil. The complaint asserts that testing shows the product contains only canola oil. Plaintiffs contend that this misrepresents the product’s composition and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
32. Matt Schilling v. Trader Joe’s Company
Plaintiff: Matt Schilling
Defendant: Trader Joe’s Company
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County
Product Focus: Yogurt pretzels
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets pretzels as yogurt-coated, suggesting meaningful yogurt content. The complaint asserts that the coating is primarily composed of sugar and oils with minimal yogurt. Plaintiff contends that this misrepresents the product’s composition and nutritional value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate relief.
Technical Risk Mitigation and Label Compliance
Labeling teams must closely align “natural” and “no artificial preservatives” claims with ingredient sourcing and processing methods to avoid inconsistencies between formulation and consumer-facing messaging. Supporting “no artificial flavors” and clean label positioning requires well-maintained documentation that clearly explains ingredient functionality and production processes.
Supply chain verification plays a central role in substantiating “100% [ingredient]” and origin claims, particularly where sourcing representations drive consumer purchasing decisions. Parallel efforts by quality and regulatory teams should include routine testing for heavy metals and contamination in food products, with disclosures calibrated to applicable regulatory thresholds.
Clear and complete allergen and safety disclosures remain critical, especially for products marketed to health-conscious consumers who rely on transparent labeling. Front-of-pack nutrition claims and serving size representations should undergo careful review to ensure alignment with FDA standards and to reduce exposure tied to consumer perception.
Cross-functional compliance systems that integrate marketing, legal, and QA oversight help identify emerging risks before products reach the market. Ongoing monitoring of food recalls and class actions involving similar products strengthens internal controls and supports efforts to mitigate food labeling litigation risk.
Strategic Counsel: Juris Law Group p.c. Defense and Compliance
At Juris Law Group P.C., we advise food and beverage manufacturers, dietary supplement companies, and packaged food brands on reducing class action risk through pre-litigation label and claim review. Our focus is on identifying exposure tied to “natural,” “no artificial flavors,” and front-of-pack nutrition claims that frequently appear in false advertising lawsuits within the CPG space.
We also perform marketing claim risk assessments and substantiation audits to ensure your scientific support aligns with consumer-facing messaging. We provide comprehensive compliance reviews for food and beverage labels, covering everything from supplier documentation and ingredient traceability to alignment with evolving class action trends.
Through our defense-side risk assessments, we evaluate litigation risks for your brand, including class certification exposure and damages modeling. We monitor food and supplement class action trends and track the repeat plaintiff firms targeting similar labeling theories across multiple jurisdictions.
