We previously covered the Southern District of California’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice candy was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product contained synthetic malic acid that functioned as a flavor. Last week, in Trammell v. KLN Enters., Inc., —
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidFood and Beverage
Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative Class
By Gavin Jackson on
An Illinois federal court recently highlighted the critical role played by pre‑class‑certification discovery in testing the adequacy of a proposed class representative. In Clark v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2026 WL 483275 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026), the defendant’s arguably “unique defense” to the named plaintiff’s false advertising claims proved fatal to class certification.
Continue Reading Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative ClassEggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court Rules
So-called “greenwashing” claims have been the subject of significant activity over the last several years. In one recent example, the Northern District of Illinois permitted a consumer class action about “cage free” eggs to proceed against Eggland’s Best over the defendant’s argument that the eggs complied with state definitions of “cage free.”
The case, Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, No. 24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. 2024), involved plaintiffs who allegedly “care[d] about animal welfare, which is reflected in their purchasing decisions,” including their decision to purchase “cage free” eggs from Eggland. Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled by Eggland’s claims on its packaging that its hens were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment,” when in fact the hens were allegedly housed indoors in large industrial facilities that, while technically “cage free,” lacked outdoor access. As a result of these misrepresentations, plaintiffs alleged they were injured by paying a price premium for the eggs that was not justified.
Continue Reading Eggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court RulesAggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court
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 CourtIllinois Federal Court Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Action Against Snack Food Company
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 CompanyDistrict Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class Action
By Cort Lannin, Jeffrey Huberman & Max Larson on
Posted in Class Action Procedure, Food and Beverage
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 ActionDistrict Court Junks Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit
By Gavin Jackson on
Posted in Consumer Products, Food and Beverage
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 LawsuitNinth Circuit Limits FDCA’s Preclusive Sweep at Pleading Stage in Food Mislabeling Case
By Wil Paustenbach on
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 CaseCalifornia Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid
By Stephen Rees & Cort Lannin on
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 AcidSplit Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards
By Andrew Soukup on
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