Filing Volume and Jurisdictional Concentration
Thirty-nine class actions were filed in May 2026 across food, beverage, dietary supplement, pet food, and consumer product categories, with New York and California continuing to dominate filing activity. Plaintiffs concentrated filings in state and federal courts that remain active venues for consumer protection, false advertising, and labeling litigation.
| Court | Case Count |
|---|---|
| New York | 15 |
| California | 18 |
| Illinois | 2 |
| Other Jurisdictions | 4 |
Dietary supplements, clean-label food products, sports drinks, pet food, and functional nutrition products accounted for a significant share of the month’s filings. Several lawsuits targeted product safety disclosures, while others focused on serving-size calculations, dosage representations, ingredient sourcing claims, and nutritional benefit statements.
Significant Case Spotlights
RB Health: Serving-Size Math and Supplement Potency Claims
Plaintiffs allege that RB Health markets Airborne dietary supplements by prominently displaying vitamin and nutrient amounts on front labels in a manner that causes consumers to believe those amounts are contained in each gummy, chewable tablet, or effervescent tablet. According to the complaint, consumers must consume multiple units to obtain the advertised dosage, with the relevant serving-size disclosures appearing elsewhere on the packaging.
Plaintiffs frame the theory of harm around consumer interpretation rather than ingredient content. The lawsuit does not allege that Airborne contains less vitamin content than stated. Instead, plaintiffs contend that consumers reasonably interpret the front panel to communicate per-unit potency, creating an inaccurate understanding of value, dosage, and product effectiveness.
Defendants facing these claims will likely focus on FDA-compliant Supplement Facts disclosures and the argument that serving-size information is plainly available to consumers. Plaintiffs, however, continue to argue that front-label messaging dominates purchasing decisions and cannot be cured by less prominent disclosures elsewhere on the package.
Serving-size litigation has expanded rapidly across the supplement category. Similar allegations were filed in May against Wakefern, Family Dollar, Aldi, Target, AmerisourceBergen, and CVS, making dosage presentation one of the most active litigation trends of the month.
Diamond Pet Foods: Failure-to-Disclose Safety Risk Theories
Plaintiffs allege that Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food products were marketed as healthy, safe, nutritionally complete, and consistent with a dog’s ancestral diet while failing to disclose alleged links between grain-free formulations and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The complaint points to scientific studies, veterinary literature, and FDA investigations discussing possible associations between grain-free diets and cardiac disease in dogs.
Plaintiffs characterize the case as a failure-to-disclose action rather than a traditional ingredient-labeling dispute. The theory is that consumers paid a premium for products marketed as superior and natural while allegedly lacking material information regarding potential health risks associated with specific formulations.
Pet food litigation continues to evolve beyond ingredient-content allegations. Plaintiffs increasingly focus on whether manufacturers possessed information regarding emerging safety concerns and whether that information should have been disclosed to consumers. Similar allegations were asserted in May against Champion Petfoods involving ACANA grain-free products.
Manufacturers selling premium pet food products should expect continued scrutiny of health, nutrition, and safety representations, particularly where products are positioned as superior alternatives to conventional diets.
Dosage and Serving-Size Litigation Accelerates
Plaintiffs filed a significant number of cases challenging front-label dosage disclosures on dietary supplements and gummies. Rather than alleging that products contain less of an ingredient than advertised, these lawsuits focus on whether consumers reasonably understand that the advertised amount applies to multiple gummies, tablets, capsules, or servings rather than a single unit.
Wakefern, RB Health, Family Dollar, Aldi, Target, AmerisourceBergen, and CVS each face allegations that front-label dosage claims overstate potency when viewed by consumers without reference to Supplement Facts disclosures. Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that consumers interpret prominent statements such as “1000 mg,” “500 Million Live Cells,” or “300 mg” as applying to individual units rather than multi-unit servings.
The common theory is not underfilling but consumer interpretation. Plaintiffs contend that dosage disclosures appearing only in side-panel Supplement Facts sections are insufficient when front-label claims allegedly create a different impression regarding potency, value, or servings per container.
Defense strategies will likely focus on regulatory compliance and the visibility of required disclosures. Plaintiffs continue to test whether courts will permit claims to proceed where serving-size information is technically disclosed but allegedly overshadowed by front-label marketing.
Clean Label Litigation Remains Focused on Citric Acid
Citric acid remains one of the most heavily litigated ingredients in the food and beverage industry. Costco, Bloom, Frito-Lay, Manischewitz, Waterboy, Craftmix, Target, Project 7, PepsiCo, EHPlabs, and Acme Markets all face lawsuits alleging that products marketed as “All Natural,” “Naturally Flavored,” “No Artificial Flavors,” or “No Preservatives” contain ingredients that consumers would allegedly consider artificial.
Plaintiffs increasingly focus on ingredient processing rather than ingredient source. Complaints repeatedly describe citric acid as being produced through industrial fermentation and manufacturing processes that allegedly conflict with consumer expectations created by natural and clean-label claims.
Ingredient function also remains central to these allegations. Plaintiffs argue that citric acid serves as a preservative, flavoring agent, stabilizer, or acidity regulator, making claims such as “No Artificial Preservatives” or “Naturally Flavored” misleading regardless of regulatory classification.
The breadth of these filings demonstrates that plaintiffs continue to view clean-label claims as fertile ground for class action litigation. Companies using broad naturalness claims should evaluate ingredient functionality, manufacturing methods, and consumer-facing messaging together rather than assessing those issues independently.
Health and Safety Disclosure Claims Expand
Several May filings focused on allegations that companies failed to disclose material health and safety information. Huel faces allegations involving lead and cadmium contamination, ByHeart faces claims involving infant formula contamination, Quest Nutrition faces allegations regarding erythritol-related cardiovascular risks, and multiple pet food manufacturers face claims involving grain-free diet formulations.
These lawsuits rely less on traditional labeling theories and more on alleged omissions. Plaintiffs argue that companies marketed products as healthy, safe, premium, or beneficial while withholding information that consumers would consider important to purchasing decisions.
The litigation trend reflects increasing plaintiff interest in scientific studies, safety reports, media investigations, and regulatory findings. Plaintiffs frequently cite external research and public reports as evidence that manufacturers knew or should have known about alleged risks associated with their products.
Companies operating in health, wellness, infant nutrition, pet food, and functional food categories should expect continued scrutiny of safety representations and disclosure practices.
Detailed monthly Litigation Index (All Cases)
May Case Tracker
1. Bongiovi v. Wakefern Food Corp.
Plaintiff: Rita Bongiovi
Defendant: Wakefern Food Corp.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: ShopRite Chewable Vitamin C Dietary Supplement
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Wakefern deceptively markets its ShopRite Chewable Vitamin C supplement by prominently displaying “100 Tablets” and “1000 mg per serving” on the front label in a manner that leads consumers to believe each tablet contains 1,000 mg of vitamin C and that the bottle provides 100 servings at that dosage. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two tablets, meaning each tablet contains only 500 mg and the bottle provides 50 servings of 1,000 mg rather than 100. Plaintiff contends that the serving-size disclosure appears only in less prominent side-panel information and is insufficient to correct the misleading impression created by the front label. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a price premium. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
2. Vilekar v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.
Plaintiff: Sayali Vilekar
Defendant: Schell & Kampeter, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods/Taste of the Wild
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Grain-free dog food
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely markets Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food as healthy, nutritionally complete, and inspired by a dog’s ancestral diet while concealing an alleged association between grain-free formulations and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The complaint asserts that the products contain high levels of legumes such as peas and lentils, which have been linked in scientific literature and FDA investigations to diet-related cardiac issues in dogs. Plaintiff contends that Defendant knew or should have known of these risks yet continued marketing the products as safe and beneficial. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium for products they believed promoted canine health. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised warnings and disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
3. Turner v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Plaintiff: Sydney Turner
Defendant: Costco Wholesale Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni with Parmigiano Reggiano
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Costco falsely markets its tortelloni as containing “no preservatives” despite allegedly including manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificial preservative. The complaint asserts that reasonable consumers interpret the claim to mean the absence of artificial or manufactured preservatives and would not expect such ingredients in a product marketed this way. Plaintiff contends that Costco failed to disclose the preservative function of citric acid and misled consumers seeking preservative-free foods. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks nationwide and state class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable remedies.
4. Settecasi v. Huel Inc.
Plaintiff: Sylvia Settecasi
Defendant: Huel Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Protein powder and meal replacement products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Huel falsely markets its products as healthy, safe, high-quality, and third-party tested while failing to disclose allegedly unsafe levels of lead and cadmium. The complaint relies on testing referenced in a Consumer Reports study, which allegedly found lead concentrations significantly exceeding recommended daily limits. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably relied on Huel’s nutrition and safety claims and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known of the alleged contamination. The lawsuit further alleges economic injury resulting from the purchase of products marketed as clean and health-focused. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable remedies.
5. Robinson v. RB Health (US) LLC
Plaintiff: Yalinda Robinson
Defendant: RB Health (US) LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Airborne dietary supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misleadingly displays vitamin dosage amounts on Airborne supplement labels in a way that causes consumers to believe each individual gummy, chewable tablet, or effervescent tablet contains the advertised amount of nutrients. The complaint asserts that consumers must consume multiple units to obtain the represented dosage. Plaintiff contends that the labeling misrepresents product potency and value while creating the impression that each serving unit provides the full advertised benefit. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
6. Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC
Plaintiff: Bianca Marinelli
Defendant: Bloom Nu LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Bloom Sparkling Energy drinks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Bloom falsely markets its energy drinks as containing “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificial flavoring ingredient. The complaint asserts that consumers interpret the labeling to mean the beverages are free from artificial flavors and are willing to pay more for products marketed as natural. Plaintiff contends that Defendant capitalized on consumer demand for less processed beverages while failing to disclose the true nature of the ingredient. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a price premium because of these representations. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
7. Kleinberg v. Family Dollar Services LLC
Plaintiff: Brandon Kleinberg
Defendant: Family Dollar Services LLC
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County
Product Focus: Family Wellness Sleep Support Melatonin Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Family Dollar deceptively markets its melatonin gummies by prominently displaying “50 Gummies” and “5 mg per serving” in a manner that leads consumers to believe each gummy contains 5 mg of melatonin and that the container provides 50 servings. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two gummies, meaning each gummy contains only 2.5 mg and the bottle provides 25 servings at the advertised dosage. Plaintiff contends that this information is inadequately disclosed and creates a misleading impression regarding potency and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection statutes.
8. Strael v. Nature’s Path Foods, Inc.
Plaintiff: Danny Strael
Defendant: Nature’s Path Foods, Inc.
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Love Crunch Protein Granola Cereal
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Nature’s Path falsely markets its cereal as a protein-focused health product by emphasizing “10 grams of protein” while minimizing or obscuring the product’s substantial sugar content. The complaint asserts that the cereal contains approximately 13 grams of added sugar per serving and that sugar is among its dominant ingredients. Plaintiff contends that the product name, packaging, and protein-centered messaging create the misleading impression of a healthy breakfast option. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium based on these health representations. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective marketing and disclosures, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
9. Strachman v. Aldi Inc.
Plaintiff: Jacqueline Strachman
Defendant: Aldi Inc.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County
Product Focus: Welby High Potency Vitamin C Adult Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Aldi deceptively markets its vitamin gummies by prominently displaying “164 Gummies” and “250 mg per serving,” leading consumers to believe each gummy contains 250 mg of vitamin C and that the container provides 164 servings. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two gummies, meaning each gummy contains only 125 mg and the bottle provides only 82 servings at the advertised dosage. Plaintiff contends that the serving-size disclosure is not adequately conveyed on the front label and misrepresents the product’s potency and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium because of these representations. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
10. Barron v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Jansen Barron
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County
Product Focus: up&up Probiotic Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target deceptively markets its probiotic gummies by displaying “80 Gummies,” “80 Count,” and “500 Million Live Cells Per Serving” in a manner that leads consumers to believe each gummy contains 500 million live probiotic cells and that the bottle provides 80 servings. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two gummies, meaning each gummy contains only 250 million live cells and the container provides only 40 servings. Plaintiff contends that the front label fails to clearly disclose this distinction, causing consumers to overestimate the product’s potency and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
11. Mollins v. Starbucks Corporation, Starbucks Coffee Company, and Starbucks Manufacturing Corporation
Plaintiff: Kenneth M. Mollins
Defendants: Starbucks Corporation, Starbucks Coffee Company, Starbucks Manufacturing Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County
Product Focus: Egg White & Roasted Red Pepper Egg Bites; Kale & Mushroom Egg Bites
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Starbucks deceptively markets its Egg Bites products as simple, premium, egg-based breakfast items through product names, menu descriptions, and references to a “French sous vide technique.” The complaint asserts that the Egg White & Roasted Red Pepper variety contains numerous ingredients not suggested by the product name, while the Kale & Mushroom variety is marketed as egg-focused despite cottage cheese allegedly being the predominant ingredient. Plaintiff further contends that Starbucks’ references to sous vide preparation create the impression of a premium culinary process when the products are allegedly mass-produced offsite and merely reheated before sale. The lawsuit alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective marketing and disclosures, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
12. Dubreu et al. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. and Tierra de Agaves, S.A. de C.V.
Plaintiffs: Mariana Dubreu; Traian Sava
Defendants: Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.; Tierra de Agaves, S.A. de C.V.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. Illinois)
Product Focus: Lunazul Tequila
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants falsely market Lunazul Tequila as “100% Agave” and containing “zero additives” when independent isotope testing allegedly detected alcohol derived in part from non-agave sources such as sugarcane or corn. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret the “100% Agave” claim to mean that all alcohol content originates exclusively from agave sugars and are willing to pay a premium for such products. Plaintiffs contend that the challenged labeling and marketing materially misrepresent the tequila’s composition and quality. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on these representations and suffered economic injury by paying more than they otherwise would have paid. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under consumer protection, warranty, and unjust enrichment theories.
13. Oh v. Trader Joe’s Company
Plaintiff: Simon Oh
Defendant: Trader Joe’s Company
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Chili Lime Flavored Fried Pork Rinds
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe’s uses oversized, opaque packaging containing substantial nonfunctional slack-fill that misleads consumers regarding the quantity of product inside. The complaint asserts that the package contains excessive empty space that serves no legitimate purpose and cannot be detected before purchase. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably rely on package size and appearance when evaluating value and quantity. The lawsuit further alleges that the packaging violates California slack-fill regulations and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff claims consumers paid more than they otherwise would have paid had the true amount of product been accurately disclosed. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring packaging changes, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
14. Sierra v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Victor Sierra
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Favorite Day and Good & Gather “Yogurt Covered” Snacks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets various snack products as “yogurt covered” despite allegedly containing no yogurt, yogurt powder, or comparable yogurt-derived ingredients. The complaint asserts that the coatings consist primarily of sugar, oils, milk powders, whey powder, and other ingredients that do not provide the characteristics consumers associate with yogurt. Plaintiff contends that consumers purchase such products expecting yogurt-related nutritional and health benefits. The lawsuit further alleges that Target uses the representation to appeal to health-conscious consumers and justify premium pricing. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, class certification, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising.
15. Gay v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Dolores Gay
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County
Product Focus: up&up Ashwagandha Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target deceptively markets its ashwagandha gummies by prominently displaying “300 mg,” “60 Gummies,” and “60 Count” in a manner that leads consumers to believe each gummy contains 300 mg of ashwagandha and that the bottle provides 60 servings. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two gummies, meaning each gummy contains only 150 mg and the container provides only 30 servings at the advertised dosage. Plaintiff contends that the front label inadequately discloses this distinction and causes consumers to overestimate potency, value, and total ingredient content. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium based on these representations. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
16. Sklyar v. Frito-Lay, Inc.
Plaintiff: Eduard Sklyar
Defendant: Frito-Lay, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. New York)
Product Focus: Lay’s Poppables
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Frito-Lay falsely markets Lay’s Poppables products as containing “No Artificial Flavors” despite allegedly containing synthetic flavoring ingredients, including citric acid and lactic acid. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret the claim to mean that all flavoring ingredients are natural and free from synthetic processing. Plaintiff contends that Defendant uses the representation to appeal to consumers seeking natural products and to command a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged labeling when making purchasing decisions. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, costs, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling, and other appropriate relief.
17. Fus v. Bayer Corporation
Plaintiff: Krzysztof Fus
Defendant: Bayer Corporation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: One A Day Men’s Pre-Conception Health Multivitamins
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Bayer falsely markets its multivitamins as improving male fertility, supporting healthy sperm, and increasing the likelihood of conception through claims such as “Men’s Pre-Conception Health” and “Supports Healthy Sperm.” The complaint asserts that scientific studies and a National Advertising Division review found insufficient evidence supporting the challenged fertility-related claims. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably relied on these representations when purchasing the product and paid a premium expecting meaningful fertility benefits. The lawsuit further alleges that Bayer continued promoting unsupported claims despite recommendations that they be modified or discontinued. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under California consumer protection statutes and common-law theories.
18. International Rights Advocates, Inc. v. Lindt & Sprüngli
Plaintiff: International Rights Advocates, Inc.
Defendants: Lindt & Sprüngli (USA) Inc.; Lindt & Sprüngli (North America) Inc.
Jurisdiction: Superior Court for the District of Columbia
Product Focus: Lindt chocolate products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Lindt falsely markets its chocolate products as ethically and sustainably sourced through representations concerning its farming program, child-labor monitoring initiatives, certifications, and sustainability commitments. The complaint asserts that investigations in Ghana revealed ongoing child labor, ineffective remediation efforts, inaccurate monitoring records, and exploitative practices within portions of the cocoa supply chain. Plaintiff contends that these conditions directly contradict Lindt’s public representations and certifications. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers are misled into believing the products are sourced under ethical labor conditions. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring corrective disclosures and changes to the company’s marketing and sourcing representations under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
19. Arrowood v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation
Plaintiff: Jillian Arrowood
Defendant: AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County
Product Focus: Good Neighbor Pharmacy Biotin Gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant deceptively markets its biotin gummies by displaying “5,000 mcg Per Serving” and “90 Gummies” in a manner that leads consumers to believe each gummy contains 5,000 mcg of biotin and that the bottle provides 90 servings. The complaint asserts that a serving actually consists of two gummies, meaning each gummy contains only 2,500 mcg and the bottle contains 45 servings rather than 90. Plaintiff contends that the front label inadequately discloses this distinction and misrepresents both potency and value. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the labeling and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
20. Boyd v. The Manischewitz Company
Plaintiff: John Boyd
Defendant: The Manischewitz Company
Jurisdiction: California Superior Court (Los Angeles County)
Product Focus: Vegetable Broth and Borscht with Beets
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Manischewitz falsely markets its products as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificial preservative. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret the labeling to mean the products are entirely free from artificial preservation agents and are willing to pay a premium for such products. Plaintiff contends that the presence and function of citric acid render the challenged representations false and misleading. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers purchased the products and paid more than they otherwise would have because of the labeling. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under California consumer protection, warranty, and fraud theories.
21. Julia Dilena v. Waterboy LLC
Plaintiff: Julia Dilena
Defendant: Waterboy LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Waterboy drink mix products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Waterboy falsely markets its drink mix products as “All Natural” and “Naturally Flavored” despite containing manufactured citric acid and other allegedly artificial ingredients. The complaint asserts that reasonable consumers interpret these representations to mean that the products are free from synthetic or chemically processed ingredients. Plaintiff contends that the citric acid used in the products is industrially manufactured through fermentation and chemical processing and therefore does not qualify as natural. The lawsuit further alleges that Waterboy used these claims to appeal to health-conscious consumers and justify premium pricing. Plaintiff claims she relied on the representations when purchasing the products and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had the true nature of the ingredients been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief.
22. Tiara Cardenas v. Craftmix, Inc.
Plaintiff: Tiara Cardenas
Defendant: Craftmix, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (E.D. California)
Product Focus: Craftmix drink mix products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Craftmix falsely markets its drink mixes as “All Natural” despite containing manufactured citric acid and sodium benzoate, which are characterized as artificial ingredients. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably understand “All Natural” to mean a product contains only natural ingredients and no synthetic additives. Plaintiff contends that the challenged ingredients are produced through industrial processing methods inconsistent with that representation. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendant capitalized on consumer demand for natural products and charged a premium price. Plaintiff claims she purchased the products in reliance on the “All Natural” representations and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had she known their true composition. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable remedies on behalf of a nationwide class and state subclasses.
23. Tisha Blackwell v. Target Corporation
Plaintiff: Tisha Blackwell
Defendant: Target Corporation
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County
Product Focus: Good & Gather Tzatziki Yogurt Dip
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Target falsely markets its Good & Gather Tzatziki Yogurt Dip as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives or Synthetic Colors” despite the inclusion of citric acid. The complaint asserts that citric acid functions as a preservative by extending shelf life, maintaining stability, preventing spoilage, and regulating pH. Plaintiff contends that reasonable consumers interpret the challenged labeling as indicating the absence of artificial preservatives and rely on those claims when making purchasing decisions. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium for what they believed was a preservative-free product. Plaintiff claims she would have paid less or not purchased the product had the ingredient’s alleged preservative function been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection statutes.
24. Victoria Rosado v. Project 7, Inc.
Plaintiff: Victoria Rosado
Defendant: Project 7, Inc.
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County
Product Focus: Joyride candy products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Project 7 falsely markets Joyride candy products as “Naturally Flavored” despite containing manufactured citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as an artificial flavoring ingredient. The complaint asserts that citric acid materially contributes to the products’ tart flavor profile and therefore functions as a flavoring agent. Plaintiff contends that consumers interpret “Naturally Flavored” claims to mean the products contain no artificial flavoring ingredients and are willing to pay a premium for such products. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendant reinforced this perception through additional marketing statements promoting the products as natural and free from artificial flavors. Plaintiff claims consumers would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known the products allegedly contained artificial flavoring ingredients. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and marketing, and other appropriate relief.
25. Yolanda Pitre v. Nestlé Health Science U.S., Inc.
Plaintiff: Yolanda Pitre
Defendant: Nestlé Health Science U.S., Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. California)
Product Focus: Biotin dietary supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Nestlé deceptively markets biotin supplements by promoting health and beauty benefits while failing to disclose that the vast majority of the biotin content allegedly provides no meaningful nutritional value. The complaint asserts that many of the challenged products contain biotin levels far exceeding recommended daily intake amounts and that excess biotin is simply excreted by the body. Plaintiff contends that consumers are led to believe higher dosages provide greater benefits for hair, skin, nails, and overall health when the additional biotin allegedly offers little or no benefit. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid premium prices based on these representations. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, corrective advertising, injunctive relief requiring disclosure regarding dosage effectiveness, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief.
26. Yolanda Pitre v. Uplifting Results Labs, Inc. d/b/a Supergut
Plaintiff: Yolanda Pitre
Defendant: Uplifting Results Labs, Inc. d/b/a Supergut
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, San Mateo County
Product Focus: Supergut GLP-1 Daily Support (formerly GLP-1 Booster)
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Supergut deceptively marketed its supplement as capable of providing meaningful GLP-1-related appetite control and metabolic benefits. The complaint asserts that the product was previously promoted as a “GLP-1 Booster” and “Proven to Control Cravings Naturally,” creating comparisons to prescription GLP-1 medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy. Plaintiff contends that the product consists primarily of conventional dietary fibers and resistant starches that provide only limited and indirect effects on satiety and endogenous GLP-1 activity. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendant exaggerated the product’s benefits while failing to disclose its limitations. Plaintiff points to later changes in branding and advertising as evidence that the challenged claims were material. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, corrective advertising, and other equitable remedies.
27. Alex Kononenko v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
Plaintiff: Alex Kononenko
Defendants: PepsiCo, Inc.; Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Gatorade beverages
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely market certain Gatorade beverages as containing “No Artificial Flavors” and being naturally flavored despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably interpret these representations to mean the products are free from artificial flavoring ingredients and are willing to pay a premium for beverages marketed as natural. Plaintiff contends that citric acid is produced through industrial fermentation and functions as an artificial flavoring ingredient under applicable standards. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants capitalized on consumer demand for natural products while concealing the true nature of the ingredients. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and advertising, and other relief on behalf of consumers who purchased the challenged products.
28. Alexander Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co.
Plaintiff: Alexander Mercado
Defendant: The J.M. Smucker Co.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Smucker’s Sugar Free Hot Fudge Spoonable Topping
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Smucker’s deceptively markets its sugar-free hot fudge topping as “Sweetened with Splenda,” leading consumers to believe Splenda (sucralose) is the primary sweetener in the product. The complaint asserts that the product is actually sweetened primarily with maltitol syrup, glycerin, and sorbitol, while sucralose appears only in a minimal amount. Plaintiff contends that consumers associate Splenda with specific health and dietary benefits and are willing to pay a premium for products prominently marketed as using it. The lawsuit further alleges that the labeling obscures the product’s true sweetener composition and misrepresents its health profile. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, attorneys’ fees, restitution, and other relief under New York consumer protection and warranty laws.
29. Anthony Hyjer v. EHPlabs, LLC
Plaintiff: Anthony Hyjer
Defendant: EHPlabs, LLC
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Product Focus: OxyShred supplements and gummies
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that EHPlabs falsely markets OxyShred dietary supplements and gummies as containing “100% Natural Flavors” despite allegedly containing manufactured citric acid. The complaint asserts that consumers reasonably understand the claim to mean that all flavoring ingredients are natural and not artificially produced. Plaintiff contends that the challenged ingredient is synthetic and inconsistent with the product’s natural-flavor representations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium price because of these representations and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had the true nature of the ingredients been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and marketing, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
30. Clarke v. ByHeart, Inc., Organic West, Inc., and Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
Plaintiff: Shantoi Clarke
Defendants: ByHeart, Inc.; Organic West, Inc.; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (D. New Jersey)
Product Focus: ByHeart Whole Nutrition Infant Formula
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufactured and sold infant formula contaminated with Clostridium botulinum while marketing the product as safe, wholesome, and made with “certified-clean ingredients.” The complaint asserts that an infant who regularly consumed the formula developed botulism, suffered severe illness, and ultimately died. Plaintiff contends that FDA testing linked contamination to the formula and ingredients used in production and that Defendants failed to maintain adequate manufacturing and quality-control procedures. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants failed to detect, prevent, or disclose contamination risks despite marketing the formula as safe for infants. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, medical expenses, wrongful death and survival damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other available relief.
31. Eilender v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc.
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Eilender
Defendant: Champion Petfoods USA Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: ACANA grain-free dog food
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Champion Petfoods falsely markets ACANA grain-free dog food as “Biologically Appropriate” and nutritionally complete while failing to disclose risks associated with grain-free formulations. The complaint asserts that the products contain high levels of legumes and pea-based ingredients that have been linked to dilated cardiomyopathy and other cardiac conditions in dogs. Plaintiff contends that consumers paid a premium believing the products were healthier than conventional dog food. The lawsuit further alleges that Plaintiff’s dog developed heart disease and later died after consuming the products. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised warnings and labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
32. Haracz v. Acme Markets Inc.
Plaintiff: Kerri Haracz
Defendant: Acme Markets Inc.
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court, Putnam County
Product Focus: Signature Select Spicy Queso Blanco Dip
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Acme falsely markets its queso dip as containing “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, and Preservatives” despite the inclusion of citric acid, which Plaintiff characterizes as a synthetic preservative. The complaint asserts that citric acid functions to extend shelf life, maintain stability, and inhibit spoilage. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably interpret the labeling to mean the product contains no artificial preservatives and pay a premium based on that understanding. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had the ingredient’s function been disclosed. Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief under New York consumer protection laws.
33. Leam et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc. and The Gatorade Company
Plaintiffs: John Leam, Greg Drayton, Shannon Mahoney, Samantha Mettler, Francesca Mignosi
Defendants: PepsiCo, Inc.; The Gatorade Company
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (S.D. New York)
Product Focus: Gatorade Thirst Quencher and Gatorade Lower Sugar
Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants falsely market Gatorade products by claiming they “Hydrate Better Than Water” and by representing certain products as containing no artificial flavors. The complaint asserts that water remains the preferred hydration source for most consumers and that the challenged claims exaggerate the products’ benefits. Plaintiffs further contend that the Lower Sugar varieties contain manufactured citric acid, which they characterize as an artificial flavoring ingredient. The lawsuit alleges that consumers paid a premium based on both the hydration superiority claim and the natural-ingredient representations. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised advertising and labeling, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other appropriate relief.
34. Singo v. Walmart Inc.
Plaintiff: Lonise Singo
Defendant: Walmart Inc.
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court, Dutchess County
Product Focus: Parent’s Choice Pediatric Shake Strawberry
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Walmart falsely markets its nutritional beverage as containing “No Synthetic Color, Flavor or Sweeteners” despite containing Stevia Leaf Extract (Rebaudioside A). The complaint asserts that the ingredient is highly processed through extraction, purification, and refinement methods and therefore qualifies as a synthetic sweetener. Plaintiff contends that consumers seeking products free from artificial sweeteners rely on the challenged representations and pay a premium price. The lawsuit further alleges that Walmart’s labeling misrepresents the product’s ingredient composition and naturalness. Plaintiff seeks class certification, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under New York consumer protection statutes.
35. Pagan v. Golchin Foods, LLC
Plaintiff: Michael Pagan
Defendant: Golchin Foods, LLC
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, Solano County
Product Focus: Golchin Ground Turmeric
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Golchin Foods falsely markets its Ground Turmeric as pure turmeric when laboratory testing allegedly detected undeclared rice starch throughout the product. The complaint asserts that the addition of rice starch dilutes the turmeric and constitutes economically motivated adulteration designed to reduce costs and increase profits. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably expect a single-ingredient spice product to contain only the ingredient identified on the label. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium for what they believed was authentic turmeric. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
36. Ballard v. Quest Nutrition, LLC
Plaintiff: Dwayne Ballard
Defendant: Quest Nutrition, LLC
Jurisdiction: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Product Focus: Quest protein bars, cookies, baked goods, and candy products
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Quest falsely markets its products as healthy, nutritious, and beneficial for consumers pursuing a high-protein, low-sugar lifestyle while failing to disclose alleged health risks associated with erythritol. The complaint points to scientific studies that purportedly link erythritol consumption to increased cardiovascular risks, including heart attack and stroke. Plaintiff contends that Quest’s wellness-focused marketing misled consumers into believing the products were entirely consistent with healthy living goals. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium because of these representations and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known of the alleged risks. Plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised advertising and labeling, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.
37. Darr v. The Gatorade Company and PepsiCo, Inc.
Plaintiff: Caitlin Darr
Defendants: The Gatorade Company; PepsiCo, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (N.D. Illinois)
Product Focus: Gatorade Lower Sugar sports drinks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely market Gatorade Lower Sugar beverages as containing “No Artificial Flavors” and being naturally flavored despite the presence of citric acid and sodium citrate. The complaint asserts that these ingredients are produced through industrial and chemical processes and materially contribute to the products’ flavor profile. Plaintiff contends that consumers reasonably rely on representations that products are naturally flavored and free from artificial ingredients and are willing to pay a premium for those attributes. The lawsuit further alleges that Defendants used extensive advertising campaigns to reinforce these representations across packaging, websites, and social media. Plaintiff seeks certification of nationwide and state subclasses, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, punitive damages, and other equitable relief.
38. Ruchman v. Ryse Up Sports Nutrition LLC
Plaintiff: Daniel Ruchman
Defendant: Ryse Up Sports Nutrition LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: Ryse Clear Protein Drinks
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that Ryse falsely labels and markets its protein drinks as containing 22 grams of protein per bottle when independent laboratory testing allegedly found materially lower protein levels. The complaint asserts that several flavors contained only approximately 19.7–20.7 grams of protein, representing shortfalls of roughly 6%–11% below the labeled amount. Plaintiff contends that protein content is a critical purchasing factor for fitness-oriented consumers and that accurate disclosure is required by federal labeling regulations. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the challenged protein claims and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and other equitable relief.
39. Wittman v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Plaintiff: Helen Wittman
Defendant: CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court (C.D. California)
Product Focus: CVS Calcium 1200 mg + D3 and CVS Glucosamine/Chondroitin supplements
Summary
Plaintiff alleges that CVS deceptively markets certain dietary supplements by prominently displaying dosage amounts on the front packaging in a manner that causes consumers to believe each capsule or softgel contains the advertised amount. The complaint asserts that consumers must actually take multiple capsules or softgels to obtain the represented dosage. Plaintiff contends that this labeling practice misrepresents potency, value, and the amount of active ingredients contained in each unit. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers relied on the front-label dosage representations and paid a premium price. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, disgorgement, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and advertising, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other equitable relief.
Strategic Counsel: Juris Law Group Defense and Compliance
Class action filings continue to expand beyond traditional ingredient disputes and increasingly target serving-size disclosures, health-benefit representations, environmental marketing, and alleged safety omissions. Early assessment of these claims can identify exposure before they become litigation targets.
Pre-litigation review remains one of the most effective tools for reducing risk. Evaluating label language, product naming, nutrient claims, ingredient disclosures, and marketing materials together often reveals vulnerabilities that are difficult to address once products are already in the marketplace.
Marketing substantiation has become a recurring focus in litigation involving fertility benefits, weight-management claims, functional ingredients, protein content, and wellness products. Maintaining testing data, scientific support, and internal documentation remains critical when defending challenged claims.
Emerging litigation trends also require ongoing monitoring. Serving-size litigation, clean-label challenges, sustainability representations, and safety-related omission theories continue to generate new filings and may warrant additional review during product launches, reformulations, and packaging updates.
Technical Risk Mitigation and Label Compliance
Front-label dosage statements deserve close review when potency claims depend on serving sizes that differ from a single gummy, tablet, capsule, or serving unit. Litigation increasingly focuses on whether consumers interpret dosage claims differently than disclosed serving information.
Routine testing remains important for validating nutrient-content and active-ingredient claims. Protein, vitamin, probiotic, and supplement lawsuits continue to rely on laboratory testing that allegedly identifies measurable shortfalls. Natural and clean-label claims warrant additional scrutiny when products contain multifunctional ingredients such as citric acid. Plaintiffs continue to focus on ingredient processing methods and functional use rather than regulatory classifications alone.
Health and wellness marketing should be evaluated alongside emerging scientific literature and publicly reported safety concerns. Pet food, infant nutrition, and functional wellness products remain frequent targets for failure-to-disclose theories.
Substantiation remains essential for fertility, performance, weight-management, and functional-benefit claims. Several May filings challenge representations that allegedly overstate product efficacy or imply benefits unsupported by available evidence.
