CSPI Alleges Fruit Roll-Ups® Maker Deceives Consumers
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is representing a California
woman who has sued General Mills, Inc. on behalf of a putative nationwide
class of consumers who purchased the company’s Fruit Roll-Ups®, Fruit by the
Foot® and Fruit Gushers® products, claiming that the company deceptively
markets them as healthy and wholesome. Lam v. General Mills, Inc. No.
11-5056 (N.D. Cal., filed October 14, 2011). According to CSPI,
“General Mills is basically dressing up a very cheap candy as if it were fruit and
charging a premium for it.”
Product labeling purportedly refers to the snacks as “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” “good source of Vitamin C,” “low fat,” and “gluten free.” The complaint alleges that these claims are misleading because the snacks actually contain trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes. The plaintiff also alleges that the products lack “significant amounts of real, natural fruit” and have no dietary fiber. No personal injury is alleged; instead, the plaintiff claims “that she would not have purchased the Products for herself and her children at a premium price had these misrepresentations not been made.”
While the complaint indicates that the products’ nutrition panels set forth
detailed information about the actual ingredients, the plaintiff contends that
“it is hard for a reasonable consumer to tell that the Fruit Roll-Ups Strawberry
product does not actually contain any strawberries.” The plaintiff also takes
issue with the defendant’s “various promotional gimmicks,” including the
opportunity to “win a laptop and give another one to a child in Africa” and to
earn cash for school via a “box top for education.” The complaint refers to a
package promotion that “directs consumers to a website that contains online
games and activities for children,” but does not indicate in what way these
promotions are misleading.
Alleging violation of Minnesota’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California’s “Sherman Law,” as well as fraudulent business acts and practices, misleading and deceptive advertising, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks restitution; disgorgement; compensatory, statutory and punitive damages; injunctive relief; attorney’s fees; and costs. See CSPI News Release, October 14, 2011.
