Food and Beverage

Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers.  Although the plaintiffs offered statistical evidence suggesting that Keurig’s coffee pod prices were elevated on average, the court held that individual issues of antitrust impact predominated over common questions because Keurig directly negotiated prices with large buyers that might fully offset any increase in average prices.Continue Reading Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court

In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondeléz International, Inc. (“Mondeléz”).  Salguero v. Mondeléz Int’l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025).  Mondeléz, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars (“Zbars”) while labeling the packaging as “climate neutral certified.”  Id.  The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California’s consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.  Id.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Action Against Snack Food Company

A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed class action alleging that consumers paid a premium for juice products advertised as “made simply” with “all natural ingredients,” reasoning that the plaintiff lacked standing in light of flaws in his testing allegations.  See Lurenz v. Coca-Cola…

Continue Reading District Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class Action

A court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the food and beverage industry “implemented addiction science techniques and predatory marketing campaigns” related to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).  Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377, 2025 WL 2447793, at *1, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025).  While acknowledging concerns about the alleged effects of UPFs on the American diet, the court nonetheless held that the plaintiff’s “woefully deficient” complaint “mandat[ed] dismissal.”Continue Reading District Court Junks Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit

This week, the Ninth Circuit held that state law mislabeling claims were not preempted at the pleading stage simply because the plaintiff failed to allege use of an FDA-approved sampling process when testing the product’s nutritional content.  Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 1430272 (9th Cir. Jun. 23, 2025). Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Limits FDCA’s Preclusive Sweep at Pleading Stage in Food Mislabeling Case

In the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid

In Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3213277 (9th Cir. June 28, 2024), a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that private plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of California’s food labeling law that mirror federal law requirements, even though private plaintiffs lack a cause of action to enforce federal law directly.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preempt private enforcement of California’s Sherman Law, even though the Sherman Law incorporates the FDCA by reference and private plaintiffs typically cannot sue to enforce the FDCA.Continue Reading Split Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards

California’s prohibition on so-called “hidden” or “junk” fees in consumer transactions is set to take effect on July 1, 2024, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for how prices are displayed or offered to consumers in the Golden State – and the potential for a significant wave of new class action litigation.

The law—often referred to by its bill number, SB 478—amends California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) to restrict the prices and fees businesses can offer to California consumers.  The basic prohibition is stated in simple terms:  businesses can no longer “advertis[e], display[], or offer[] a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges” to consumers, with limited exceptions such as for sales tax and certain shipping charges.  SB 478 § 3 (to be codified at Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A)).  But this simple language generates numerous complexities.  For example:  Are clearly disclosed fees prohibited if not folded into the main price, or just fees not presented to consumers in close proximity (in both location and time) to the primary price?  When is a fee “mandatory”?  Can fees that are included in a price still be itemized? Continue Reading Outlawing Hide-and-Seek:  California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect

Companies in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, and other industries continue to face litigation regarding their products’ labeling, including as to whether certain representations on labels are deceptive or misleading.  In the Second Circuit and elsewhere, these lawsuits tend to turn on what an objective “reasonable consumer” would understand the representation at issue to mean, and whether that “reasonable consumer” would likely be misled under the circumstances.  In Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir, May 2, 2024), the Second Circuit confirmed how important expert testimony can be to that question, and how efforts to exclude expert testimony can ultimately be the difference between winning and losing. Continue Reading A Closer Look: The Importance of Expert Testimony for “Reasonable Consumer” Claims

A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that an “All Natural” representation on the front label of defendant’s beverage products was false and misleading because the products contained synthetic citric acid and used vegetable and fruit juice concentrates for color.  Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 2024 WL 1158476 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024).Continue Reading SDNY Court Dismisses False Advertising Lawsuit Alleging “All Natural” is Misleading Based on Alleged Use of Synthetic Citric Acid