An Illinois woman has filed a proposed class action against Mondelēz, alleging the company's Trident gum misleads consumers into believing its flavoring comes from peppermint or mint ingredients rather than artificial flavoring. Lesorgen v. Mondelēz Global LLC, No. 22-50375 (N.D. Ill., filed October 28, 2022). The product at issue in the suit is Trident Original Flavor gum. The plaintiff noted in the complaint that the front label states "ORIGINAL FLAVOR" with a picture of a blue-colored peppermint leaf. "By representing the Product as 'mint' or 'peppermint' without any qualifying terms, consumers and Plaintiff expected its taste was from mint or peppermint ingredient," the plaintiff said in the complaint. "However, the ingredient list in small print on the back does not identify any mint or peppermint ingredients, and gets its mint or peppermint taste from 'Natural and Artificial Flavor.'” The plaintiff asserts that the products' added natural and artificial flavor must…
Tag Archives artificial flavoring
An Illinois consumer has brought a proposed class action against Herr Foods Inc., alleging the packaging of its jalapeño-poppers-flavored cheese curls misleads consumers as to the source of the product’s flavoring. Forlenza v. Herr Foods Inc., No. 22-5278 (N.D. Ill., filed September 27, 2022) The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that consumers have a hierarchy when it comes to the source of a food’s taste: the most preferred option is when the taste comes from a characterizing food ingredient, followed by natural flavors and artificial flavors. She also cited surveys finding that a majority of the public seeks to avoid artificial flavoring. The plaintiff said she read and relied on labeling including “Oven Baked With Real Cheese,” “Flavored Cheese Curls,” and a picture of a ripe jalapeño and cheese dripping out of one of the snacks, among other representations, and believed the product got its jalapeño and cheese taste from…
An Illinois man has sued 7-Eleven, alleging the convenience store chain’s private-label spicy jalapeno-flavored jumbo peanuts misled consumers as to whether they were naturally flavored. Wilim v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 22-4886 (N.D. Ill., filed September 9, 2022). The plaintiff said in the suit that he read “Flavored Jumbo Peanuts — Spicy Jalapeño” on the packaging of the 7-Select brand jumbo peanuts and saw pictures of the two jalapeños and jalapeño slices on the packaging and believed the product got its flavor from jalapeños. He accuses 7-Eleven of misrepresenting the flavoring as natural when it is derived instead from artificial flavoring. “Plaintiff is part of the majority of consumers who avoid artificial flavors, based on their beliefs that foods with artificial flavor are less healthy than those without them,” the plaintiff said in the complaint. “Plaintiff did not expect the jalapeño taste was from artificial jalapeño flavoring because, in his experience, this…
Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging that Tropicana misleads consumers by implying that its products are natural despite containing malic acid. Willard v. Tropicana Mfg. Co., No. 20-1501 (N.D. Ill., filed February 28, 2020). The complaint argues that Tropicana "tricks consumers" into buying products by "omitting the legally required disclosures" about artificial flavoring because the juice products list malic acid—which the plaintiff asserts is the synthetic flavoring form, dl-malic acid—as an ingredient. Tropicana "intended to give reasonable consumers like the Plaintiff the impression that the Products are pure, natural, and not artificially flavored, by packaging, labeling, and advertising the Products" with depictions of fresh fruit and names such as "Farmstand Apple," the plaintiffs assert. For alleged violations of Illinois and California consumer-protection statutes, they seek class certification, injunctions, damages and attorney's fees.
A plaintiff has alleged that Frito-Lay North America Inc. fails to include a mandated front-of-package disclosure that its Cheddar and Sour Cream chips are flavored with artificial flavoring. Ithier v. Frito-Lay N. Am. Inc., No. 20-1810 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 1, 2020). The complaint asserts that "[b]ased on flavor composition analysis of the Products, the artificial flavor consists of compounds associated with butter flavor," and "butter flavor is known as enhancing and boosting the flavor of cheddar cheese." Thus, according to the plaintiff, the flavor of the chips should be listed as "Artificially Flavored Cheddar & Sour Cream." The plaintiff alleges fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties and a violation of New York's consumer-protection statute, and he seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney's fees.
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Tropicana Manufacturing Co. misrepresents its orange juice as "natural" because it contains a variation of malic acid that can be used as an artificial flavoring ingredient. Johnson v. Tropicana Mfg. Co. Inc., No. 19-1164 (S.D. Cal., filed June 20, 2019). The complaint, echoing similar actions filed by the same plaintiff's firm against other companies, alleges that the ingredient "malic acid" on the product's ingredient list is not the naturally occurring l-malic acid but rather d-l malic acid, which "is manufactured in petrochemical plants from benzene or butane—components of gasoline and lighter fluid, respectively—through a series of chemical reactions, some of which involve highly toxic chemical precursors and byproducts." The plaintiff alleges violations of California's consumer-protection laws and seeks class certification, restitution, damages, corrective advertising and attorney's fees.
A California federal court has preliminarily approved a settlement agreement between a consumer and Ferrara Candy Co. alleging the company misleadingly advertised its SweeTarts as free of artificial flavors despite containing malic acid. Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 18-0658 (S.D. Cal., entered February 28, 2019). Under the agreement, Ferrara will remove the phrase "no artificial flavors" from its packaging and marketing materials and pay $272,000 in attorney's fees.
A California federal court has partially certified a class of consumers that alleges Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc. misled them into believing that their products were free of artificial flavoring but contained malic acid. Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., No. 17-2335 (S.D. Cal., entered November 29, 2018). The court first found that the proposed class met the requirements of typicality, numerosity, commonality and adequacy of the class representative before focusing on the predominance issue for the breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty allegations. The plaintiff asserted that damages for those allegations could be determined with a survey that apparently identified the price premium that consumers would pay based on the "no artificial flavors" representation. Ocean Spray argued that the "proposed damages model is fatally flawed" because of the use of "diverse comparative products, retailing concepts, juice percentages and an irrelevant specific time period," and the court agreed,…
Plaintiffs represented by the same plaintiff's firm have filed lawsuits alleging that companies mislead consumers by labeling their foods as flavored naturally despite containing malic acid. Lepiane v. Utz Quality Foods LLC, No. 18-2659 (S.D. Cal., filed November 20, 2018); Augustine v. Talking Rain Beverage Co., No. 18-2576 (S.D. Cal., filed November 9, 2018). The plaintiffs who filed against Utz Quality Foods allege that the company's Dirty Salt & Vinegar Potato Chips are labeled as containing "no artificial flavors" but list malic acid as an ingredient. "This type of 'malic acid' is not naturally-occurring but is in fact manufactured in petrochemical plants from benzene or butane—components of gasoline and lighter fluid, respectively—through a series of chemical reactions, some of which involve highly toxic chemical precursors and byproducts," the complaint argues. The complaint against Talking Rain Beverage Co. makes identical allegations. Both complaints allege violations of California consumer-protection statutes and seek…
Seven advocacy groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Food Safety, have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a decision on a 2015 petition asking FDA to withdraw its approval of seven food additives purportedly shown to cause or linked to cancer. In re Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. FDA, No. 18-71260 (9th Cir., filed May 2, 2018). According to the petition, the additives—including benzophenone, ethyl acrylate and pyridine—add flavoring to food, such as mango, butterscotch, “floral, cinnamon and mint notes." The petition alleges that “food labels do not indicate whether a product contains any of the seven flavors here at issue. And the degree of risk associated with consumption is impossible to predict. ... [C]oncentrations of the flavors—and, therefore, the health consequences of ingestion—may vary significantly between brands.”
