In a new post on the Inside Privacy blog, our colleagues discuss the Seventh Circuit’s recent Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company holding that a 2024 amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) limiting damages to a per-person basis applies retroactively to cases pending when the amendment
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds that BIPA Amendment Applies RetroactivelySeventh Circuit
Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative Class
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 RulesIllinois 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 Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules
Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations. On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance.
The case, Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2218111 (7th Cir. 2025) was a long-running natural gas price fixing case. Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class. They argued that common questions of law or fact predominated, including “whether the class paid higher prices for natural gas[.]” Id. at *4. Plaintiffs and defendants had competing experts on the predominance issue as it related to impact. Id.
Continue Reading District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit RulesClaims that Drug Manufacturer Paid PBMs to Disrupt Operation of State Generic Substitution Laws not Viable, Says Illinois Court
On June 25, an Illinois federal court dismissed an antitrust class action that alleged that branded drug manufacturer Biogen harmed competition by paying Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) not to promote generic alternatives to its treatment for multiple sclerosis, Tecfidera. In re Tecfidera Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-cv-7387, 2025 WL 1755725 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2025).
Continue Reading Claims that Drug Manufacturer Paid PBMs to Disrupt Operation of State Generic Substitution Laws not Viable, Says Illinois CourtSeventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on “Raw Honey” Labeling
In Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802402 (7th Cir. July 1, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a consumer class action which was based on speculative and contradictory assertions that a product marketed as “raw honey” was not actually raw.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on “Raw Honey” LabelingIllinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics Case
An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics. In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.
In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles. Id. The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Id. at *2, *6. Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims. Id. at *6.
On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.
Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics CaseUnique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages
Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC. Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024).
In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages. The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.”
Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic DamagesIllinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To Proceed
A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the alleged inclusion of artificial citric acid in a product rendered the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” representation on the front label false and/or misleading. Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2024 WL 4766319 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024).
Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To Proceed