Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Fruit Content of Strawberry Pop-Tarts
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a complaint alleging that Kellogg Sales Co. misleads consumers by including more ingredients than just strawberries in the filling of its Strawberry Pop-Tarts. Chiappetta v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 21-3545 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered March 1, 2022). The plaintiff alleged that “the Product packaging misled her and other consumers into believing that the Product’s fruit filling contained ‘only strawberries and/or more strawberries than it does’ because it bears the word ‘Strawberry,’ and it depicts half of a fresh strawberry and red fruit filling. [] In reality, though, the Product’s fruit filling contains more than just strawberries; it also contains dried pears, dried apples, and a food dye known as ‘red 40,’ among other ingredients.”
The court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s arguments. “The essence of [the plaintiff’s Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act] claim is that the word ‘Strawberry,’ combined with a picture of half of a strawberry and a Pop-Tart oozing red filling, misleads consumers into believing that the Product’s filling consists of ‘only strawberries and/or more strawberries than it does’ have. [] However, no reasonable consumer could conclude that the filling contains a certain amount of strawberries based on the package’s images and its use of the term ‘Strawberry,'” the court found. “The front of the Product packaging does not state or suggest anything about the amount of strawberries in the Product’s filling or guarantee that the filling contains only strawberries, and [the plaintiff] concedes that the filling contains some strawberries. [] Accordingly, [the plaintiff’s] interpretation of the label is unreasonable and unactionable.”
The court found that the plaintiff’s claims for breach of warranties failed for the same reason; “Kellogg never made the representation that [the plaintiff] claims it made.” Further, because of the failure of the state law warranties claims, the plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim failed as well. Accordingly, the court granted Kellogg’s motion to dismiss the complaint but granted the plaintiff three weeks to amend the complaint “if she can do so in accordance with this Opinion and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”
