The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed in May 2024. Below is a summary of the plaintiff’s allegations. To request a copy of a particular complaint or for queries or further discussion, you’re welcome to reach out via email at [email protected].
1. Albrigo v. Chobani
Plaintiff Laura Willis Albrigo filed a class action lawsuit against Chobani LLC in the Superior Court of California, alleging that the company falsely markets its “Chobani Zero Sugar” yogurt as containing “Only Natural Ingredients.” The lawsuit claims that despite this representation, the yogurt contains artificial and synthetic ingredients, including stevia leaf extract, monk fruit extract, and coloring agents in most varieties. Additionally, certain flavors allegedly contained manufactured citric acid, further contradicting the company’s marketing claims.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Chobani to cease its alleged deceptive marketing practices. Albrigo argues that Chobani’s labeling misleads consumers who specifically seek out and pay a premium for all-natural products. The legal action is based on violations of California’s Business and Professions Code and claims of unjust enrichment.
2. Bono v. Lidl
Plaintiff Nancy Bono filed a class action lawsuit against Lidl US LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging deceptive marketing related to fruit-flavored products. The lawsuit argues that Lidl misrepresents the flavoring of its products by falsely implying they contain real fruit ingredients when they primarily rely on artificial flavors and synthetic compounds.
The lawsuit asserts violations of New York’s consumer protection laws, claiming that Lidl’s advertising misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing a natural product. Bono seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Lidl to revise its labeling practices. The complaint highlights consumer demand for natural flavors and argues that Lidl’s deceptive marketing tactics unfairly capitalize on this trend.
3. Cavallaro v. Eggland’s Best
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Eggland’s Best, Inc. and Eggland’s Best, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the company misleads consumers by marketing its Cage-Free eggs as coming from hens that are “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment.” The complaint asserts that in reality, many of the hens are confined indoors in factory farm conditions without outdoor access or adequate space.
The lawsuit claims that Eggland’s Best deceives consumers who are willing to pay a premium for humanely raised eggs. Plaintiffs argue that the company’s marketing misrepresents the living conditions of the hens and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive advertising.
4. Chaves v. Topco
Plaintiff Octavio Chaves filed a class action lawsuit against Topco Associates LLC in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging that the company misleads consumers by marketing its blueberry-flavored products as containing real blueberries when they primarily rely on artificial flavors and synthetic additives. The lawsuit claims that Topco takes advantage of consumer demand for natural flavors while failing to disclose the true nature of its ingredients.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Topco to correct its product labeling. Chaves argues that consumers were misled into purchasing these products at a premium, believing they contained real fruit when they did not.
5. Clark v. Nordic Naturals
Plaintiff Dayna Clark filed a class action lawsuit against Nordic Naturals, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging false advertising regarding the company’s fish oil supplements. The lawsuit claims that Nordic Naturals falsely markets its fish oil capsules as promoting heart health when scientific evidence suggests they do not provide such benefits.
Clark argues that Nordic Naturals misleads consumers into purchasing a product under false pretenses, leading them to believe it supports cardiovascular health. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and corrective advertising, as well as an injunction preventing Nordic Naturals from making similar claims in the future.
6. Cox v. Del Monte Foods
Plaintiffs Jamie Cox and Mary Johnson filed a class action lawsuit against Del Monte Foods in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company falsely advertises its “Deluxe Gold Pineapple” products as containing “No Preservatives.” The complaint states that despite this claim, the products contain citric acid, which functions as a chemical preservative.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Del Monte from continuing its alleged deceptive marketing. Plaintiffs argue that consumers paid a premium for these products under the belief that they were preservative-free, only to later discover otherwise.
7. Dimarco v. Aspire Brands
Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Aspire Brands in the U.S. District Court, alleging false advertising and deceptive labeling of its energy drinks. The lawsuit claims that Aspire Brands markets its beverages as “healthy” and “all-natural” while allegedly containing synthetic and artificial ingredients.
The lawsuit asserts violations of consumer protection laws and seeks damages, restitution, and corrective advertising. The plaintiff argues that Aspire Brands misled consumers who believed they were purchasing a healthier alternative to traditional energy drinks.
8. Garland v. Mead Johnson
Plaintiffs Chelsea Garland, Estelita Rey, and Zachary Williams filed a class action lawsuit against Mead Johnson & Company, alleging that its Enfagrow Toddler Nutritional Drinks make unlawful and misleading nutrient content claims. The lawsuit claims that the product’s labeling suggests it provides essential health benefits for children under two years old, despite the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibiting such claims for products intended for that age group.
The lawsuit argues that Mead Johnson’s advertising exploits parents’ desire to provide their children with nutritional benefits, leading them to pay a premium for the product. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Mead Johnson from continuing to make these misleading claims.
9. Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best
Plaintiffs Tim Janecyk and Eric Wilim filed a class action lawsuit against Eggland’s Best, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging deceptive marketing of its Cage-Free eggs. The lawsuit claims that Eggland’s Best falsely advertises that its hens are “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment” when, in reality, they are confined indoors in factory-farm conditions.
The lawsuit argues that Eggland’s Best misleads consumers into paying a premium for eggs they believe come from humanely raised hens. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent further deceptive advertising.
10. John v. Walmart
Plaintiff Valerie John filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging deceptive marketing regarding fruit flavors in its private-label products. The complaint claims that Walmart misrepresents its cherry-flavored products as containing real cherries when they actually contain artificial flavoring.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Walmart to correct its product labeling. John argues that consumers were misled into purchasing these products at a premium under the false belief that they contained real fruit ingredients.
11. Mays v. Wegmans
Plaintiffs Tiffany Mays and George Wilson filed a class action lawsuit against Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging misleading marketing regarding whole grain content in the company’s products. The complaint highlights that consumers are increasingly seeking whole grain products due to their health benefits. However, Wegmans allegedly misrepresents the whole grain content of its products, leading consumers to believe they are consuming a healthier option when the products contain primarily refined grains.
The lawsuit argues that Wegmans exploits consumer confusion by using terms such as “whole wheat” and “multigrain” while the primary ingredient remains refined flour. Plaintiffs cite studies showing that refined grains lack essential nutrients and contribute to weight gain. They seek damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Wegmans from continuing these allegedly deceptive labeling practices.
12. Mills v. Albertsons
Plaintiff Debra Mills filed a class action lawsuit against Albertsons Companies Inc. in the Superior Court of California, alleging false advertising and deceptive marketing of its food products. The complaint focuses on Albertsons’ use of the term “real ingredients” while allegedly incorporating additives and synthetic substances into its products. Mills claims that the company capitalizes on consumer demand for minimally processed foods by creating misleading product labels that suggest the absence of artificial ingredients.
The lawsuit argues that Albertsons’ marketing misleads health-conscious consumers into paying a premium for products they believe to be free from additives. Plaintiffs cite federal regulations that define food misbranding and argue that Albertsons’ actions violate consumer protection laws. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent Albertsons from continuing these practices.
13. Murgolo v. Price Chopper
Plaintiffs Britney Murgolo and Dana Berkley filed a class action lawsuit against Price Chopper, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging deceptive marketing of whole grain content in its products. The complaint claims that Price Chopper misrepresents the amount of whole grains in certain products by using labeling techniques that mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing healthier options.
The lawsuit argues that Price Chopper engages in deceptive advertising by capitalizing on the health-conscious trend of whole grain consumption while using mostly refined grains. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Price Chopper to correct its product labeling to accurately reflect whole grain content.
14. Reff v. Danone
Plaintiff Ilene Reff filed a class action lawsuit against Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging false advertising regarding its coffee creamer products. The lawsuit claims that Danone misrepresents its creamers as containing real dairy cream when they allegedly contain lower-quality substitutes and additives.
The lawsuit argues that Danone’s advertising misleads consumers who expect a premium dairy product based on the company’s marketing. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent Danone from continuing these allegedly deceptive labeling practices.
15. Smith v. HV Foods
Plaintiff Dwight Smith filed a class action lawsuit against The HV Food Products Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging misleading labeling of its Hidden Valley Ranch dressing mix. The lawsuit claims that the company falsely advertises its dressing mix as containing buttermilk while using substitute ingredients that do not meet consumer expectations.
The complaint argues that the marketing misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing a premium product containing real dairy ingredients. Smith seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent HV Foods from continuing these allegedly deceptive marketing practices.
16. Spiegel-Grim v. CVS
Plaintiff Lisa Spiegel-Grim filed a class action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging false advertising related to its Gold Emblem Yogurt Pretzel Twists. The lawsuit claims that CVS misrepresents the product as being coated in yogurt when it actually contains a candy-like coating made from sugar and hydrogenated oils.
The lawsuit argues that CVS falsely promotes the product as healthy, misleading consumers who expect the nutritional benefits of real yogurt. Spiegel-Grim seeks damages, restitution, and corrective advertising to prevent CVS from continuing these allegedly deceptive marketing practices.
17. St. John v. Lidl
Plaintiff Annmarie St. John filed a class action lawsuit against Lidl US LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging deceptive marketing regarding whole grain content in its products. The complaint claims that Lidl misrepresents its bread and bakery products as containing significant amounts of whole grains while primarily using refined flour.
The lawsuit argues that Lidl’s marketing tactics exploit consumer trust and that its labeling practices violate consumer protection laws. St. John seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction to require Lidl to change its labeling to reflect the actual whole grain content.
18. Tobin v. General Mills
Plaintiff Mark Tobin filed a class action lawsuit against General Mills Sales, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that its Cocoa Puffs cereal contains unsafe levels of lead. The complaint claims that independent testing found the lead content in the cereal exceeded California’s Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Daily Level.
The lawsuit argues that General Mills failed to warn consumers about the presence of lead while marketing the cereal as nutritious. Tobin seeks damages, restitution, and corrective labeling to ensure transparency about the product’s safety.
19. Urena v. Wakefern
Plaintiff Pedro Urena filed a class action lawsuit against Wakefern Food Corp. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging false advertising regarding whole grain content in its products. The lawsuit claims that Wakefern misleads consumers by marketing its products as containing whole grains when they primarily consist of refined flour.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction requiring Wakefern to correct its labeling to accurately represent its whole grain content. Urena argues that consumers were deceived into paying a premium for products that did not provide the expected nutritional benefits.
20. Waller v. Costco
Plaintiff Valerie Waller filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri, against Costco Wholesale Corp. and Niagara Bottling, LLC. The lawsuit alleges that the companies falsely and deceptively market Kirkland-branded purified water as “with minerals added for taste” when, in reality, the water contains synthetic chemical additives, including sodium bicarbonate, which is not a mineral. The plaintiff contends that the labeling misleads consumers, who expect natural minerals rather than synthetic compounds in their bottled water. Additionally, the complaint claims that the ingredient label is difficult to read and intentionally obscured, further deceiving consumers.
The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, arguing that the defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and engaged in false advertising. The complaint highlights the growing consumer demand for products free from synthetic additives and claims that consumers paid a premium for a product that does not meet their expectations. The plaintiff also asserts that sodium bicarbonate has potential adverse health effects, particularly when consumed long-term, making the misrepresentation more harmful.
21. Wheeler v. VNGR (Poppi)
Plaintiff Megan Wheeler filed a class action lawsuit against VNGR Beverage, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging false advertising regarding its Poppi “prebiotic soda” products. The lawsuit claims that VNGR falsely markets Poppi as a beverage that supports gut health, using slogans like “Be Gut Happy. Be Gut Healthy” and “For a Healthy Gut.” The plaintiff argues that the amount of prebiotic fiber in Poppi (2.5 grams per can) is insufficient to provide any meaningful gut health benefits. Furthermore, consuming enough Poppi to receive any potential benefits would require drinking multiple cans per day, leading to excessive sugar intake, which can harm gut health rather than improve it. The lawsuit alleges that VNGR misled consumers, particularly those with gut health issues such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and Crohn’s disease, into believing that Poppi would help their condition when, in reality, the product may cause bloating, discomfort, and other digestive issues. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent VNGR from continuing its allegedly misleading advertising. The plaintiff contends that VNGR capitalized on the rising consumer interest in gut health to sell a product that does not provide the benefits it claims.
