Tag Archives snack

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that Kind LLC misleadingly markets its products as made from whole fresh fruits. Song v. Kind LLC, No. 18-4982 (E.D.N.Y., filed September 4, 2018). The complaint asserts that the product names and descriptions "use collective names to refer to their components” because they are allegedly made from processed fruit, “by-products or processed derivative ingredients.” The plaintiff also argues that the visual representations on the packaging “emphasize their equivalence to whole fruits.” The complaint further asserts that tropical fruits used in the products are dried using osmotic dehydration, which purportedly treats the fruits with added sugars. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Kind uses ascorbic acid as a preservative but does not list it among the ingredients. Claiming violations of New York’s General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.

The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has declined to uphold a complaint arguing that Walkers Snacks targeted children under 16 with a product high in fat, salt or sugar by showing an advertisement for Doritos before YouTube videos. The complaint asserted that the “media or context” of the ad targeted children under 16, but ASA found that Walkers had taken “a range of steps to ensure that the ad was not targeted to children under the age of 16, using both age restrictions and interest based factors.” Walkers applied YouTube age-targeting restrictions by not approving the ad for families and instructing YouTube to show the ad to users logged into accounts with a self-reported age of 18 or older. “We understood from the complainant that the ad had been seen by an 8-year-old child who was not signed into YouTube, using a device used by both adults and children,” ASA…

Two consumers have filed a putative class action alleging Clif Bar & Co. misleads consumers because its bars do not contain “real white chocolate.” Joslin v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 18-4941 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed August 14, 2018). According to the complaint, “U.S., Canadian, and European regulators all define white chocolate as having at least 3.5% milkfat” while Clif’s White Chocolate Macadamia Nut bars do not contain any milkfat. The plaintiffs assert that they relied upon the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “rules concerning white chocolate” when purchasing the bars but allegedly learned after purchasing that the bars are “misbranded” because the labels do not clarify that the white chocolate is “imitation.” The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, restitution, an injunction and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of California and New York consumer-protection laws as well as fraud.

Pepperidge Farms Inc. faces a lawsuit alleging that a woman became ill with Salmonella gastroenteritis after eating the company’s Goldfish crackers, which purportedly contained contaminated dry whey powder. Finch v. Pepperidge Farms, Inc., No. 18-152 (N.D. Miss., filed August 8, 2018). The plaintiff alleges that she bought and ate the Goldfish on July 19, 2018, became ill that evening, and tested positive for Salmonella one week later. Pepperidge Farm issued a recall of four varieties of Goldfish after its supplier notified it of potential contamination. Claiming manufacturing-defect strict liability, failure-to-warn strict liability, negligence per se, negligence and breach of warranties, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees.

Diamond Foods LLC faces a putative class action alleging Kettle Foods potato chips are marketed as “Made with Natural Ingredients” and “No Preservatives” but contain citric acid. Mason v. Diamond Foods LLC, No. 18-6423 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 16, 2018). The complaint identifies several flavors of chips that allegedly contain the “synthetic compound,” purportedly produced from mold strains and sulfuric acid. Claiming violations of several states' consumer-protection statutes, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of warranties and common law fraud, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.

Utz Quality Foods LLC and Good Health Natural Products Inc. face a potential class action alleging that the companies replaced a blend of vegetable-derived ingredients with synthetic additives in their Extra Goodness! products, including vegetable straws and chips. Feldman v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 18-6004 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 3, 2018). The complaint alleges that the companies deceptively marketed and misbranded the snacks, which were previously made with a proprietary blend of spinach, broccoli, carrots, tomatoes, beets and shiitake mushrooms. The plaintiff contends that Utz and Good Health stopped buying the blend in December 2016 and replaced it with a "cheaper synthetic blend" but did not update the ingredient list for more than a year. Moreover, the plaintiff contends that the current product does not contain "significant amounts of the vegetables or vegetable-derived vitamins depicted, and are not healthful." Claiming deceptive acts or practices, false advertising, breach of warranties and unjust enrichment,…

Plaintiffs in California and New York have filed a putative class action alleging Clif Bar & Co. “omits, intentionally distracts from, and otherwise downplays" the "high added sugar content” of Clif Classic and Clif Kid bars. Milan v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 18-2354 (N.D. Cal., filed April 19, 2018). The complaint asserts that the bars contain high amounts of added sugar—“a chronic liver toxin”—and alleges that excess sugar consumption can lead to several conditions, including metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, high triglycerides and hypertension. The plaintiffs allege that Clif “employs a strategic marketing campaign intended to appeal to customers interested in healthful foods in order to increase sales and profits, despite that the high-sugar bars are detrimental to health.” By emphasizing “nutritious” and “organic” ingredients as well as the lack of high-fructose corn syrup and genetically modified organisms, the company allegedly fails to disclose that Clif Classic and…

Kellogg Co. faces a putative class action alleging its Salt & Vinegar Pringles are mislabeled as containing “No Artificial Flavors” because the nutrition label identifies two artificial ingredients. Marotto v. Kellogg Co., No. 18-3545 (S.D.N.Y., filed April 20, 2018). The complaint asserts that although both sodium diacetate and malic acid can occur in nature, the sodium diacetate used in the product is “a synthetic industrial chemical manufactured in a chemical refinery from carbon monoxide and industrial methanol" while the malic acid is “d-1-malic acid . . . manufactured in petrochemical plants from benzene or butane.” Alleging unfair and deceptive business practices, false advertising and misrepresentation, the plaintiff seeks class certification, corrective advertising, damages and attorney’s fees. In March 2018, a federal court in California refused to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Kellogg, finding the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded reasonable customer confusion.

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Trader Joe’s Co.'s two-ingredient fruit bars are deceptively labeled with collective terms such as “apples” on the ingredient list instead of the specific name for an apple-based ingredient. Jamison v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 18-2216 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 14, 2018). The plaintiff asserts that the use of a collective term misleads consumers into believing that the products are made from whole, unprocessed fruit, which would require “an additional binding ingredient such as a gel, pectin, juice concentrate or syrup.” A solid bar made without a binding agent, the complaint asserts, would require fruit powder and water, which are not listed on the product labels. Alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranties, fraud and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.

A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging That’s It Nutrition deceptively labels and advertises its snack bars’ ingredients by using collective names for the fruits and vegetables they contain. Medina v. That’s It Nutrition, LLC, No. 18-2022 (E.D.N.Y., filed April 4, 2018). The complaint alleges that That's It fruit bar labels list generic names rather than specific ingredients; for example, one bar's label lists “apples” without specifying whether the ingredient is apple powder, puree or some other processed form of the fruit. “If the defendant began the bar production process with whole intact fruits, the ingredient list would indicate the presence of an additional binding ingredient such as a gel, pectin, juice concentrate or syrup, needed to keep the individual fruit matter together,” the complaint asserts. The label representations, which include “That’s it,” “All Natural,” “No Preservatives,” “Raw,” “No Purees or Juices,” “2 ingredient snack,” “Just Fruit” and…

Close