One day after a California resident filed a putative class action complaint against Krispy Kreme, she voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice with no explanation for the dismissal. Salem v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 17-7487 (C.D. Cal., dismissal filed October 13, 2017). The complaint alleged that Krispy Kreme “purposefully, intentionally, and willfully” misled customers as to the sugar content and calorie count of their doughnuts. In addition, the plaintiff stated that she relied on the nutritional information provided in a store pamphlet that misleadingly advertised the chain’s apple fritter as only 210 calories per serving. The plaintiff claimed violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Tag Archives doughnuts
A California consumer has filed a putative class action against Dunkin’ Brands Group alleging that Dunkin' Donuts deceived customers into believing its blueberry and maple products contained “real” blueberries and maple syrup or sugar instead of artificial flavorings. Babaian v. Dunkin’ Brands Grp., No. 17-4890 (C.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2017). The plaintiff contends that the chain’s use of the terms “blueberry” and “maple” in doughnut names represent to consumers that the products contain “real ingredients” and that Dunkin’ has a duty to disclose the use of artificial flavorings. Further, the plaintiff asserts that whether the doughnuts actually contain “real ingredients” is material to a “reasonable” consumer’s purchase decision because of the antioxidant properties and health benefits of both blueberries and maple syrup. Claiming breach of warranties, breach of contract, fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, quasi-contract and violations of California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution and…
A consumer has filed a projected class action against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., alleging the company’s blueberry, maple and raspberry products are not made with the ingredients in their fruit-based names. Saidian v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., No. 16-8338 (C.D. Cal., filed November 9, 2016). The complaint highlights health benefits apparently linked to raspberries, blueberries, maple syrup and maple sugar, asserting that Krispy Kreme charged a premium for its products to capitalize on those perceived health benefits while using imitation versions of the ingredients. The plaintiff also distinguishes the blueberry, raspberry and maple products from Krispy Kreme’s lemon, strawberry and cinnamon apple products, because the latter group does contain its advertised ingredients, leading to further consumer confusion. For allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and violations of California statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, an injunction, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 622
Heartland Consumer Products, producer of sucralose-based sweetener Splenda®, has filed a lawsuit against Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and its franchisees alleging the restaurant chain misleads its customers into believing it carries Splenda® while providing a different sweetener made in China. Heartland Consumer Prods. v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., No. 16-3045 (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div., filed November 7, 2016). According to the complaint, Dunkin regularly purchased Splenda® from Heartland until April 2016, when it switched to a different sucralose sweetener. Heartland asserts that Dunkin employees continue to tell customers that the sweetener is Splenda even though the new sweetener is a “Chinese-made, off-brand sucralose.” Heartland further argues that Dunkin appropriated its “Sweet Swaps” program by creating a Dunkin-branded “Smart Swaps” program. The complaint asserts that Heartland received multiple reports of consumer confusion, including one customer who reported that a Dunkin employee said Dunkin had “bought out Splenda.” For allegations of trademark infringement, dilution, false…
Responding to a shareholder resolution filed by As You Sow, Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc. has reportedly agreed to reformulate its white powdered donuts to avoid the use of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. In return, the shareholder advocacy group has withdrawn its most recent resolution, which claimed that “recent research on the ingestion of inorganic nanoparticles has raised concerns regarding toxicity to humans and the environment.” According to As You Sow, 18.7 percent of shareholders supported a previous resolution asking Dunkin’ to identify any products containing nanomaterials. That resolution followed a 2013 report alleging that food-grade titanium dioxide can contain particles less than 100 nanometers “in at least one dimension.” “Insufficient safety information exists regarding these manufactured particles, especially for use in foods; preliminary studies show that nanomaterials can cause DNA and chromosomal damage, organ damage, inflammation, brain damage, and genital malformations, among other harms,” claims a March 5, 2015, As You…
