The following is a summary of relevant, notable Class Action Lawsuits that were filed during September 2023. 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].
- Warren v I-Health
Ethel Warren and Christian Campos are suing I-Health, Inc. They claim that I-Health mislabeled and misrepresented their Culturelle Ultimate Balance for Antibiotics products, violating FDA rules. The plaintiffs argue that the products are illegal to sell and that they wouldn’t have bought them if they knew the truth. The lawsuit includes details about the product, class action allegations, and causes of action. The plaintiffs accuse I-Health of intentional misbranding, deceptive advertising, and CLRA violations. They seek declaratory relief, injunction, restitution, fund disgorgement, and damages.
- Durant v Big Lots
Peggy Durant is suing Big Lots, Inc. She claims that Big Lots falsely advertised the number of servings in their Fresh Finds brand Colombian Coffee. Durant says the product’s claim of “up to 210 suggested strength 6 fl oz servings” is deceptive because she only got 152 servings. Durant is using the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and False and Misleading Advertising statute. She’s also alleging breach of express warranty and fraud. It’s a class action lawsuit, with Durant representing all Florida residents who bought the product. Jurisdiction is based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and the venue is in the Middle District of Florida.
- Fields v Walmart
Dena Fields is suing Walmart Inc. in a class action complaint. The complaint claims that Walmart’s “Mixed Fruit in 100% juice” product is misleading because it has more added water than juice and contains additives like natural flavor and ascorbic acid. The complaint argues that this makes the product “misbranded” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Florida Food Safety Act (FSA). It also accuses Walmart of false advertising, breach of express warranty, and fraud. The complaint explains the jurisdiction, venue, and parties involved, and lists the plaintiff’s demands, which include class action certification, monetary damages, and attorney fees.
- Gonzalez v Sway Fitness
Michael Gonzales is bringing a class action complaint against SWAY FITNESS LLC. The complaint alleges deceptive practices in the sale of the Pre-Workout Cherry Bomb Product due to oversized packaging. Gonzales argues that consumers are misled into paying premium prices for empty space, as the product is underfilled without a legitimate reason. The complaint cites similar cases with successful class treatment. It also contends that none of the statutory exceptions for slack-fill apply to this product, and that the Defendant could easily adjust the powder quantity or container size.
The complaint outlines class action allegations and common legal and factual questions for all class members. Gonzales seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, attorney fees, equitable relief, and prejudgment interest. Two additional causes of action are included: false and misleading advertising and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
- Merrick v Beliv
Irone Merrick has filed a class action complaint against Beliv LLC, alleging deceptive labeling of their “Strawberry Banana Nectar” product. The complaint claims that the product misleads consumers by suggesting it contains mainly strawberry and banana juices when it primarily consists of apple juice. Additionally, it accuses Beliv LLC of not disclosing the presence of artificial flavoring, which violates regulations. Merrick seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees.
- O’Sullivan v Conagra
Plaintiff Michael O’Sullivan is taking legal action against Conagra Brands, Inc. for selling a product contaminated with dangerous plastic particles. This lawsuit is being filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. O’Sullivan aims to represent a class of individuals who purchased the product within the statute of limitations period. The complaint argues that the product is unsafe for human consumption and that Conagra Brands, Inc. benefited unjustly from selling it. Additionally, it points to a nationwide recall initiated by Conagra Brands, Inc., which the plaintiff contends was insufficient. As a result, the complaint seeks monetary damages, punitive damages, and reimbursement for the costs and expenses incurred during the legal proceedings.
- TK v Prime Hydration
This is a class action complaint against Prime Hydration LLC, Congo Brands LLC, Logan Paul, and Olajide Olayinka Williams Olatunji (aka “KSI”) for falsely advertising PRIME Energy. The plaintiff, T.K., represents herself, her son John Doe, and others in a similar situation. The complaint alleges that the defendants marketed PRIME Energy as a healthy drink while containing 200 milligrams of harmful caffeine for children and adolescents. It claims the defendants knowingly targeted minors and outlines health risks related to caffeine in children. The complaint mentions calls for FDA investigation and bans in various countries and businesses. The plaintiff accuses the defendants of fraudulent and deceptive practices, violating California and Kentucky consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and public nuisance. T.K. seeks damages, injunctive relief, and equitable remedies.
- Doyon v Schwan’s
David Doyon has filed a class action complaint against Schwan’s Consumer Brands, Inc. Doyon’s claim centers on Schwan’s frozen key lime pie, which is advertised as “No Preservatives” despite containing chemical preservatives, specifically sodium citrate and disodium phosphate. These substances function as preservatives by preventing fat ingredient breakdown, maintaining pH levels, and removing heavy metal traces. Schwan’s is accused of “misbranding” their product for failing to disclose these chemical preservatives, violating the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and Missouri’s Ch. 196, Food, Drugs, and Tobacco. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, venue, parties involved, and outlines the class action allegations and causes of action.
- Foster v Citrus World
Anne Foster and Madeleine Rogow, along with others in their situation, have filed a class action complaint against Citrus World, Inc. The complaint contends that Citrus World falsely advertises its Florida’s Natural 100% Premium Orange Juice as “natural” and “100% premium” despite containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals harmful to people and the environment. The presence of PFAS, according to the plaintiffs, makes the product adulterated and misbranded, violating federal and state laws. The plaintiffs allege that Citrus World knew or should have known about the PFAS but intentionally omitted this information from the label. They seek relief for various claims, including violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California Civil Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the Song-Beverly Act, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. Additionally, the plaintiffs request a public injunction against Citrus World and the extension of the statute of limitations.
- Gamez v DE II
Jasmine Gamez has filed a class action complaint against DE II, LLC, accusing them of deceptively selling KETOMEAL nutrition products in oversized packaging that’s nearly half empty. She claims this tricks consumers into paying more for empty space and alleges the underfilling serves no lawful purpose but to save money and deceive. Gamez seeks injunctive relief, damages, restitution, and attorney fees. She also argues that no statutory exceptions apply to the slack-fill in the product. The complaint alleges packaging violations and outlines class action allegations, common legal and factual questions, and two additional causes of action: false advertising and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
- Gamez v GNC
Jasmine Gamez is suing GNC Holdings, Inc. for deceptively selling nutrition products in oversized packaging, which she claims is almost half empty. She alleges GNC is tricking consumers into paying premium prices for empty space, engaging in a “slack-fill scheme” harmful to both consumers and competitors. Gamez argues that none of the slack-fill statutory exceptions apply to GNC’s product, making the packaging misleading. She outlines class action allegations and common legal and factual questions for all class members. Gamez highlights damages suffered by her and the class due to GNC’s conduct, demanding injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorney fees. Additional causes of action include the False Advertising Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Similar cases have been successful in state and federal courts.
- Heyning v Quinoa Corp
Jennifer Heyning is suing Quinoa Corporation for deceptive labeling and marketing of Ancient Harvest brand goods. The complaint claims Quinoa Corporation makes protein claims on the product packages’ front but doesn’t provide the corrected protein amount in the Nutrition Facts Panel, violating FDA rules. The products are also alleged to have low-quality proteins, not delivering the claimed protein amount. The complaint specifies the misleading products, the importance of protein quality, and FDA regulations and California’s Sherman Law violations. It argues that Quinoa Corporation intentionally misleads consumers to boost sales. The lawsuit includes causes of action like violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, and common law fraud, seeking compensation for the extra price paid due to misleading protein claims.
- Jackson v Bolthouse Farms
Jennifer Jackson and April Due are suing Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. for falsely claiming their juice products have no preservatives. They argue that the presence of ascorbic acid makes these claims untrue. The lawsuit alleges violations of California Unfair Competition Law, New York General Business Law, and includes claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. They seek injunctive relief, restitution, and a jury trial. The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Frederick J. Klorczyk and Julian C. Diamond from Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
- Scheibe v Drink Nectar
Jacob Scheibe, represented by attorney Charles C. Weller, is filing a class action complaint against Drink Nectar, Inc. dba Nectar Hydration (“Nectar”). The complaint claims that Nectar’s “Essential Daily Hydration” stick packs are falsely advertised as “all-natural” and free from artificial ingredients while containing artificial flavoring (DL malic acid), which violates federal and state regulations. The case is in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California due to a dispute exceeding $5,000,000 and parties from different states. The complaint addresses various legal violations, including the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions Code, and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500. It also questions unjust enrichment and breach of an express warranty by the defendant. Scheibe argues that a class action is the best way to handle this case, with him as an adequate representative of the class.
- Thompson v Schwans
Cassandra Thompson is filing a class action complaint against Schwan’s Consumer Brands, Inc. The complaint argues that the company falsely advertises their frozen chocolate crème pie as having “No Preservatives” while containing chemical preservatives like phosphate salts and polysorbates. It mentions relevant laws and regulations that require disclosing these preservatives and asserts that the “No Preservatives” claim is misleading and violates the law by “misbranding” the product. The complaint also explains how the phosphate salt preservatives work in the product and provides details about jurisdiction, venue, and the parties involved.
- Coburn v Kroger
Bridget Coburn is leading a class action lawsuit against The Kroger Co. concerning their “Smoked Gouda” cheese labeling. The complaint contends that the cheese is misleadingly labeled as it fails to mention the addition of liquid smoke flavoring on the front label. It discusses the history and process of smoking food, the emergence of liquid smoke flavoring as a substitute, and the distinctions between the two. The complaint refers to various regulations and laws, such as the FFDCA and Mo. Rev. Stat., which require accurate labeling. It argues that Kroger’s cheese is “misbranded” due to this omission. The complaint also covers jurisdiction, venue, parties involved, and provides details about class action allegations and causes of action.
- Scheibe v Crafted Brand
Jacob Scheibe has filed a class action complaint against Crafted Brand Company, LLC, regarding their Mai Tai and Pina Colada cocktail mixers. The complaint argues that these products are deceptively labeled because they contain citric acid, a common preservative, despite the label stating “No preservatives.” This, according to the plaintiff, violates federal regulations and influenced consumers’ decisions to purchase the products. The complaint seeks class action status, emphasizing common legal and factual questions. It establishes the plaintiff’s standing and efficiency of the class action mechanism. The complaint includes counts for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. It also establishes jurisdiction and venue, highlighting the importance of “clean label” foods to consumers.
- Drugas v Prime Hydration
Kyra Drugas is taking legal action against Prime Hydration LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She alleges that the defendant misrepresented the caffeine content in their “PRIME Energy” drinks, claiming 200mg when it’s actually between 215-225mg. This discrepancy is significant, considering potential health risks from caffeine. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Legal grounds for her claims include violations of state and federal food labeling laws, false advertising, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case has garnered public and political attention, with calls for regulation or a ban on high-caffeine energy drinks for minors.
- Hernandez v Wegmans
Jonas Hernandez is suing Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. for deceptive marketing regarding their canned fruit products. He alleges Wegmans falsely claims these products are “In 100% Juice” and contain “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives,” which contradicts the inclusion of ascorbic acid, considered a preservative. Hernandez relied on these claims when purchasing and argues that Wegmans benefits unfairly from these practices. His claims include deceptive marketing, violation of state consumer protection statutes, New York’s General Business Law § 349, and New York’s General Business Law § 350. The case is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking class action status and a trial by jury, with a prayer for relief.
- Smothers v Dave’s Killer Bread
Five plaintiffs have filed a class action complaint against Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. and Flowers Foods, Inc. The complaint accuses the defendants of misrepresenting the protein content in their products, which the plaintiffs find misleading and unfair to consumers. They argue that the defendants should have used the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score (PDCAAS) for a more accurate protein quality representation. The plaintiffs describe their experiences of being misled and outline specific Illinois law violations. They also claim the defendants engaged in deceptive practices, false advertising, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and equitable remedies.
