1 JUNE 2025 Labeling Cases Filed in March and April ..............................................................................................................2 Not All That Glitters Is Gold(fish) ..........................................................................................................................3 Whey to Go! Protein Bars Dodge Injunctive and Equitable Relief Claims (Again)....................................................3 Defendant Rocks On to Summary Judgment Victory in Heavy Metals in Dark Chocolate Class Action....................4 Baby Food Lawsuits Get Mashed .........................................................................................................................4 Baby Food Suit Survives Infancy ..........................................................................................................................5 Rainy Days Continue for Bottled Water Plaintiffs...................................................................................................5 Court Rejects Popsicle Company’s Bid to Put False Advertising Suit on Ice............................................................6 “Gentle” Formula Lawsuit Settlement Proposes to Send Refunds to New York and Florida Parents........................7 Microwave-Safe Containers Under the Microscope in Microplastics Suit ..............................................................8 Mac N’ Cheese, but Hold the Preservatives..........................................................................................................8 California Plaintiffs Whip Up Yet Another Citric Acid Suit.......................................................................................9 Metal Flowers? ....................................................................................................................................................9 K-Cup Pod Litigation Is Brewing.........................................................................................................................10 Arrr You Kidding? Second Lawsuit Claims “No Preservatives” Label Walks the Plank ...........................................10 All Proteins Are Created Equal? “No Whey!”.......................................................................................................10 Artificial Sweeteners Stir Up Trouble .................................................................................................................11 Peanut Air Despair.............................................................................................................................................11 Seltzer Got Served: Natural Labeling Litigation Floats into Carbonated Water Space............................................11 Cream of the Crop—or Not? Whipped Cream Product Stirred Up in Controversy over “Natural” Claim .................12 Petits Fours.......................................................................................................................................................13
2 For an amuse-bouche, we’ve gathered the details and served up a chart highlighting the variety of 36 new suits filed in March and April—a taste of the latest labeling claims. 15 “Natural” Ingredient Claims 5 Environmental, Social & Governance Claims 5 Nutrient Content Claims 3 Foreign Substances 3 Health & Wellness Claims 2 Flavor/Ingredient Claims 2 Servings per Container 1 Slack-fill
3 Case Decisions Not All That Glitters Is Gold(fish) Ward v. Pepperidge Farm Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00078 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2025). A cracker-consuming plaintiff is swimming with the current after a court opened the floodgates for her putative class action. Readers might recall when the manufacturer of a popular, cheesy, finned-and-gilled snack that smiles back first found itself caught in the wide net of consumers challenging the use of citric acid in an array of food and beverage products. In line with a sea of others, this plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the label statement “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” is materially misleading because citric acid is an artificial preservative. In denying the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently alleged citric acid is a preservative, and an artificial one at that. According to the complaint, which incorporated by reference several scientific studies, more than 90% of commercially produced citric acid is manufactured through a processed derivative of black mold, rather than extracted from citrus fruit. And while it may be fishy to argue an ingredient derived from naturally occurring mold is artificial, the court was hooked by the allegation that the industrial process to manufacture that ingredient, and the chemical differences with the natural variety, created a reasonable impression that it was artificial. We will continue to sail after this case into the deep waters of discovery. Whey to Go! Protein Bars Dodge Injunctive and Equitable Relief Claims (Again) McCausland v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 5:23-cv-04526 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025). We’ve taken a look at this case before, when the plaintiffs alleged that Gatorade Protein Bars were deceptively advertised as promoting health, fitness, and athleticism when they actually contained high levels of total and added sugars that rendered many labeling statements misleading. We discussed how the court drew a line between preempted claims (certain implied health claims such as the bars did not contain a disqualifying level of total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, or sodium) and non-preempted claims (voluntary, unregulated claims like “Backed by Science”). But in that prior decision, the court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief and equitable restitution. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, modestly amending the allegations in support of their requests for injunctive relief and equitable restitution. The court once again dismissed those claims, finding the new allegations added little. The court previously explained that the plaintiffs had not alleged a concrete threat of future harm because they did not need to rely on the products’marketing, advertising, and labeling to determine whether they contained unhealthy amounts of sugar. Instead, they now knew they could review the labels on the bars. In response, the plaintiffs added an allegation in their amended complaint that they make food purchases without researching the labeling fine print as a matter of expediency and habit. The court held that the plaintiffs could not “manufacture a concrete threat of future
4 Case Decisions harm by simply alleging that they do not read labels.” Even if expediency or habit might justify a reasonable consumer’s failure to review the bars’ labels in general, the plaintiffs had now acquired specific knowledge they could not ignore when making future purchases. Meanwhile, the additional allegation that the plaintiffs “lack[ed] an adequate remedy at law” was insufficient to resuscitate their request for equitable relief. To plausibly allege a party lacks an adequate remedy—as required to state a claim for equitable relief—plaintiffs must explain how the money they seek through restitution is different from the money they seek as damages and plead facts in support of their allegation. Defendant Rocks On to Summary Judgment Victory in Heavy Metals in Dark Chocolate Class Action In re Trader Joe’s Company Dark Chocolate Litigation, No. 3:23-cv-00061 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025). We last got a taste of the weighty claims filed against a specialty grocer in February 2023, when we reported on some of the original complaints alleging the grocer’s dark chocolate bars contained heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Several complaints followed and were eventually combined in a consolidated class action before the Southern District of California. While several of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed at the motion to dismiss phase, the plaintiffs chose to rock on with their remaining claims, rather than amending. The remaining claims existed under the unfair and deceptive business practices acts of New York, Washington, and Illinois. Seizing on an opportunity to pull the plug on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, the defendant filed an early summary judgment motion on two threshold legal issues: the defendant’s exclusive knowledge of the potential presence of heavy metals in the challenged products and whether the plaintiffs could pursue an omission claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The judge found that motion to be a (gavel) banger, flinging the plaintiffs’remaining claims into the mosh pit. Specifically, the court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the exclusive knowledge requirement for their remaining claims because the presence of heavy metals in chocolate, and the food supply in general, was information reasonably obtainable and easily discoverable by consumers. Dozens of articles and publications submitted by the defendant established that the presence of heavy metals in chocolate had been widely publicized. The court looked to other heavy metals cases (e.g., pet and baby food), finding that the information available was even more directly disclosed as the product itself, chocolate, is known to contain heavy metals compared with an ingredient that the product at issue contained. For the same reason, the court also jammed with the defendant’s omissionbased argument, finding that the plaintiffs “have no viable omission-based ICFA claim because there is no statement that conveys a material omission upon which [Plaintiffs] relied.” Baby Food Lawsuits Get Mashed In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, No. 24-2766 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025). In another heavy metals victory for the defense, the Ninth Circuit upheld a summary judgment decision dismissing claims that the defendant failed to disclose on its baby
5 Case Decisions food products’ labels that they may contain heavy metals and perchlorate. Noting that these elements are present in soil, air, and water, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims failed to allege more than “conjectural and hypothetical injuries” supporting their theory that the products might cause adverse health effects over time. The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ cries that the defendant had exclusive knowledge about the risk of heavy metals and perchlorate in the products and concealed the risk of harm. Walking through each of the factors considering whether the defendant had a duty to disclose that the products contained heavy metals, the court held that prior publications from other sources and on the defendant’s own website support that the defendant did not conceal facts about the products. Finally, the court declined the plaintiffs’ request to certify to the California Supreme Court the question of what legal standard applies to claims of deception by omission under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, the state’s consumer protection statutes, explaining that “under any plausible legal standard advanced by the parties,” the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Baby Food Suit Survives Infancy In re Nurture Baby Food Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-01217 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2025). Despite recent successes at the summary judgment stage, some heavy metal suits are still trying to crawl. A suit in the Southern District of New York has made it past the litigation infant stage—surviving a motion to dismiss claim that the defendant sold baby food products without disclosing they may contain heavy metals. Relying on a congressional report, the plaintiffs alleged the challenged products contain “dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium” and that the defendant knowingly sold products that violated internal company standards and failed safety tests. The plaintiff parents hailing from various states filed claims for violations of numerous state consumer protection statutes, as well as for fraud and unjust enrichment. Limited by the federal pleading standard at the motion to dismiss stage, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to crawl into discovery. In its order, the court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they had suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing because they alleged they would not have purchased the baby food had they known it contained the purportedly dangerous heavy metals. The court declined to adopt the defendant’s position that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims despite the FDA’s ongoing evaluation of appropriate levels of heavy metals in baby food, and it likewise rejected the defendant’s federal preemption argument, concluding that there is currently no federal law regulating heavy metals the plaintiff’s statelaw claims would conflict with. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs plausibly stated a claim for relief. Given the track record for these heavy metal suits at the next stage of litigation, we’ll keep an eye on the (baby) monitor to see whether this suit is similarly stopped in its toddling tracks. Rainy Days Continue for Bottled Water Plaintiffs Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01267 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025). Defendants continue to ride the wave of bottled water microplastics suit dismissals. We previously covered defendant successes in dealing with the recent surge
6 New Complaints in complaints alleging that bottled water contains microplastics. The Northern District of Illinois burst the bubble of yet another set of plaintiffs bringing these claims on behalf of putative nationwide, Illinois, New York, Nevada, and Pennsylvania classes. The plaintiffs alleged that the use of the term “natural” on the bottled water product was false and misleading because the water contains microplastics. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs cited two studies, both published years before their purchases of the product, that purportedly identified microplastics in other brands of bottled water. While the court rejected the defendant’s preemption arguments, noting that statelaw claims challenging deceptive statements voluntarily added to the product’s label are not preempted, it agreed with the defendant that the plaintiffs failed to meet the plausibility standard because the cited testing was not contemporaneous and involved other brands of water. The court determined that in the context of “consumable products claimed to include contaminants … plausibility requires more,” lest courts be flooded with lawsuits based on unfounded allegations that a product contains microplastics, “forever” chemicals, heavy metals, or the like. Court Rejects Popsicle Company’s Bid to Put False Advertising Suit on Ice Austin’s Natural Frozen Pops Inc. v. Jonny Pops LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00716 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2025). In a ruling likely to send chills down the dessert aisle, a Texas court declined a popsicle company’s bid to melt away a competitor’s claims that its rival wrongfully advertised its popsicles as made from “simple ingredients,”“100% real fruit,” and with the “wholesome nutrition of a fruit bar” when, in reality, the products are made primarily from water and cane sugar. While enjoying the false advertising and unfair competition claims alleged by the plaintiff, the court did not bite on the defendant’s arguments that its statements were not misleading when viewed in the context of the entire packaging and, in any event, were mere “puffery” rather than actionable false statements about the contents of its products. In sustaining the plaintiff’s Lanham Act false advertising claim, the court emphasized that the context of the statements—including that they were surrounded by pictures of fruit—could plausibly mislead consumers into believing that the popsicles were, in fact, made primarily out of fruit. In denying the defendant’s arguments to melt its rival’s claims away, the court also relied on allegations that consumer reviews were available online reflecting that consumers were, in fact, deceived by the pop’s labeling. Finally, the court also refused to dismiss a California-based unfair competition claim because the offending popsicles were sold in California, which was sufficient conduct to permit the extraterritorial application of California law to an out-of-state defendant. While this defendant will eventually get another bite at summary judgment, the court’s frosty treatment of the defendant’s initial arguments serves as further warning that courts will not rely on an ingredient list to cure misleading statements on the front of a product’s packaging.
7 Settlements “Gentle” Formula Lawsuit Settlement Proposes to Send Refunds to New York and Florida Parents Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co., No. 1:15-cv-02995 (E.D.N.Y. May 3, 2025). Manemeit v. Gerber Products Co., No. 2:17-cv-00093 (E.D.N.Y. May 3, 2025). An infant formula manufacturer agreed to put a lid on two long-running class actions over its “Good Start Gentle” (GSG) infant formula, offering consumers in New York and Florida a path to partial refunds—with or without a receipt. The Eastern District of New York preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The underlying cases stem from allegations that the manufacturer overstated the allergy-prevention benefits of its GSG formula and that the FDA had endorsed GSG. The plaintiffs argued the company’s marketing crossed the line, claiming it gave caregivers the wrong impression that GSG was clinically proven to reduce the risk of certain allergies. They also alleged the defendant used this misleading advertising to charge more for GSG than it otherwise could have, in violation of Florida’s and New York’s consumer protection statutes. After nearly 10 years, both sides agreed to settle with no admissions of wrongdoing, despite a fairly generous settlement—providing an amount greater than a full refund of the alleged price premium. According to the court’s preliminary approval order, Florida subclass members may receive $3 per unit, and New York subclass members $4 per unit, with a total of $19.5 million available for claims. While the New York subclass’s recovery represents only a small fraction of their theoretical maximum damages, the court found the amount reasonable given the litigation risks and uncertainties in statutory interpretation. The court deemed the settlement fair, equitable, and the result of arm’s-length negotiations. It also approved the notice plan and scheduled the final approval hearing for September 9, 2025.
8 New Complaints Microwave-Safe Containers Under the Microscope in Microplastics Suit Cheslow v. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03655 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025). Andesilic v. Newell Brands Inc., No. 2:25-cv-03736 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2025). On April 25, a serial plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of Ziploc bags and containers, alleging that the products were falsely advertised as “microwave safe” and suitable for use in the freezer, when they were actually made from polyethylene and polypropylene, which release microplastics when microwaved and frozen. Three days later, the same plaintiff’s counsel filed a similar suit against the maker of Rubbermaid food storage containers. These lawsuits reflect a growing trend of the plaintiffs’ bar shifting away from targeting food products that may have been contaminated with microcontaminants. In those cases, plaintiffs have at times struggled to establish standing, which requires plausible allegations that the specific product purchased and consumed by the plaintiff is contaminated. If there is not a clear theory of what caused the contamination—Did the microcontaminant migrate from product packaging? Was a limited batch of product contaminated during the manufacturing process? Did the microcontaminants end up in the product through a particular ingredient source or water supply? Were they intentionally added?—it is difficult to show that the contamination is so systemic and widespread that the given product purchased by the plaintiff was contaminated. Plaintiffs have also had difficulty identifying any representation of the presence of the microcontaminants that was false when dealing with food products. Here, the plaintiffs may have stumbled upon a theory that could fare better at the motion to dismiss stage. They have identified a specific causal mechanism (migration from plastic containers triggered by heating in the microwave or cooling in the freezer), as well as actual representations they claim were falsely made (“microwave-safe” or designed for use in the freezer). Whether these lawsuits find more success than suits targeting allegedly contaminated food products remains to be seen, but in the meantime, manufacturers of microwave- and freezer-safe containers and other products should beware. Mac N’ Cheese, but Hold the Preservatives Fitzpatrick v. Target Corp., No. 706058/2025 (Queens Cnty. Sup. Ct. Mar. 3, 2025). Seeking to preserve his place among like-minded consumers, another plaintiff has challenged a “No Artificial Preservatives” representation on the front label of a mac n’ cheese product. Like plaintiffs before him, this plaintiff alleges that potassium phosphate, sodium phosphate, and sodium citrate—all allegedly artificial ingredients—function as preservatives, rendering the product misbranded under federal laws and regulations and therefore misleading under New York consumer protection laws. Undeterred by cheesiness, the plaintiff bakes the manufacturer’s alleged use of artificial preservatives and misleading labeling into a long history of food safety and labeling laws in the United States. And while the complaint noodles on the important role that food preservatives have played over the last century, it
9 New Complaints nevertheless alleges that the plaintiff would not have paid as much for the mac n’ cheese product had he known it contained allegedly artificial preservatives. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all New York purchasers of the particular mac n’ cheese product, even if they were burned by later learning about the allegedly synthetic preservatives. California Plaintiffs Whip Up Yet Another Citric Acid Suit Deforest v. Dole Packaged Foods LLC, No. 30-2025-01465589 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 6, 2025). Two California consumers have whipped themselves into a legal frenzy over the presence of citric acid in a popular frozen treat bearing the front-label claim “no artificial ingredients.” The plaintiffs bring claims for violations of California consumer protection laws on behalf of putative nationwide and California classes. Following the same recipe as many of the citric acid suits we have reviewed previously, the complaint mixes a dash of “citric acid is manufactured from black mold” scare tactics with a pinch of poorly designed studies and a smidgen of FDA warning letters to support the claim that the citric acid ingredient used in the frozen product is artificial. While the complaint contained numerous allegations attempting to explain why commercial citric acid is artificial, in a slight deviation from the recipe, the plaintiffs failed to allege any facts demonstrating that the product actually contains citric acid at all—an image or recitation of the ingredients list is notably absent from the complaint. We’ll stay tuned to see whether the plaintiffs will swirl to the top or if the defendant is able to put these claims on ice. Metal Flowers? Hart v. Sprouts Farmer’s Market Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00792 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025). Two California plaintiffs allege that a manufacturer and distributor misled consumers about the purported health benefits and quality of its line of sunflower butter products by representing those products were safe for children and consumers and made with non-toxic ingredients. According to the complaint, those products contain unsafe and unlawful levels of cadmium, a purportedly known human carcinogen “linked to a myriad of health issues.” The complaint alleges that testing revealed some of the defendant’s products contained cadmium in high enough levels to require a Proposition 65 warning label in California. However, according to the plaintiffs, the products failed to discuss the high levels of cadmium, deceiving consumers. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs contend they would not have paid a premium for the products had they known they contained the heightened, and undisclosed, levels of cadmium. The plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of purported nationwide and California subclasses of consumers and assert violations of California’s consumer protection statutes and false advertising law and claims for breaches of implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
10 New Complaints According to the plaintiff, both substances are not only preservatives but“artificial”ones at that, due to their synthetic production methods. The suit dives deep into the science, describing how citric acid is industrially extracted using a strain of black mold and chemical solvents, while lactic acid is synthesized through fermentation and acid-base reactions. The plaintiff contends that consumers expect clean-label snacks to be just that: clean. The complaint hoists the flag on historical FDA webpages, Department of Agriculture technical documents, and past warning letters to food manufacturers, spotlighting citric acid’s role as a preservative—yet conveniently overlooking that some of these very documents also chart its other uses, such as adding flavor to the mix. This case parallels a similar federal suit filed earlier in New York but brings claims under California’s robust consumer protection laws. The complaint alleges violations of both California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law and seeks restitution, damages, and injunctive relief to stop the allegedly misleading marketing. All Proteins Are Created Equal? “No Whey!” Sarayli v. Huel Ltd., No. 5:25-cv-02406 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2025). A self-professed “protein-conscious” consumer has sounded the alarm about the amount of protein in a popular nutrition company’s plant-based Black Edition Vegan Protein Powder. The plaintiff claims that the amount of protein that is “bioavailable”—a measure of the amount of a protein that can be absorbed by the human body—in the defendant’s K-Cup Pod Litigation Is Brewing Fraser v. Peet’s Coffee Inc., No. 25CU019511C (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 11, 2025). A California consumer sued a popular coffee manufacturer on grounds that the defendant falsely advertises its K-cup coffee pods as “recyclable,” when they are not according to California’s standards. The complaint steeps that, despite the packaging depicting the “chasing arrows” symbol, the word “recyclable,” and the statement “Peel. Empty. Recycle.,” California law requires a latte from those that want to advertise using the chasing arrows symbol. For example, the suit claims that a majority of consumers must have access to recycling facilities that will in fact be able to recycle the product. The plaintiff alleges that recycling facilities in California do not— and cannot—recycle the K-cup pods due to the residue, size of the pods, and type of plastic they contain. The plaintiff hopes to brew a class of California citizens to bring claims under California’s consumer protection statutes. Arrr You Kidding? Second Lawsuit Claims “No Preservatives” Label Walks the Plank Noohi v. The Hershey Co., No. 25STCV11697 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 21, 2025). A popular candy and snack manufacturer might need to update its treasure map. In a second lawsuit targeting the beloved Pirate’s Booty snacks, a California plaintiff has raised the sails on a class action, alleging deceptive labeling tied to preservatives hiding in plain sight. The complaint alleges that several Pirate’s Booty varieties—including Aged White Cheddar and Cheddar Blast—promise “no artificial preservatives” but contain both citric acid and lactic acid.
11 New Complaints Peanut Air Despair Reyes v. Truly Good Foods, No. 25ST-cv-06861 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 10, 2025). A California plaintiff has joined the slack-fill litigation fray, alleging that the defendant’s peanuts are packaged in opaque bags filled with more puff than product. In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that the defendant sells peanuts in oversized packaging, which misleads consumers into believing they are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The complaint seeks to certify a nationwide and California subclass of plaintiffs who purchased the product and asserts violation of California’s consumer protection statutes, false advertising, and common-law fraud. Seltzer Got Served: Natural Labeling Litigation Floats into Carbonated Water Space Gradney v. Polar Beverages., No. 3:25-cv-02149 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 02, 2025). A new class action has bubbled up in California, where two plaintiffs claim the defendant’s “100% Natural” label misrepresents the true nature of its flavored carbonated water. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant’s sparkling water contains synthetic flavoring compounds, and their complaint bubbles over with purported scientific analysis, including “GC Mass Spectrometry” results identifying synthetic compounds like ocimene quintoxide and terpineols, which the plaintiffs argue are incompatible with the “100% Natural” label. The suit asserts a cocktail of causes of action, including breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of numerous California and New York consumer protection statutes. pea- and rice-based product is far lower than in traditional whey protein, rendering the defendant’s advertisement that its product contains 40 grams of protein misleading and deceptive. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all fellow protein-consuming consumers, bringing claims for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. Artificial Sweeteners Stir Up Trouble Cusumano v. Dolgen N.Y. LLC, No. EF002527-2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 16, 2025). Litigation is fizzing up against a beverage manufacturer over allegations that it misbranded its strawberry-flavored sparkling water as containing zero sugar. The plaintiff, looking to certify a class of similarly situated New Yorkers, alleges that he paid a premium for this beverage, sold through Dollar General’s brand “Clover Valley,” thinking it was just “flavored sparkling water.” But because the product is sweetened with “Sucralose and Acesulfame Potassium”—which are listed on the bottle’s ingredient list—the plaintiff argues the front label’s claim of “Zero Sugar” violates New York’s unfair and deceptive business practices laws. He further alleges that the product is actually closer to a “diet soda” and that it was misleading to consumers to advertise the product as containing “Zero Sugar” with a slash through the “o” in “Zero” on the label, surrounded by pictures of strawberries in clear water.
12 New Complaints Cream of the Crop—or Not? Whipped Cream Product Stirred Up in Controversy over “Natural” Claim Powell v. National Dairy Products Corp., No. 2522-CC00771 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Apr. 22, 2025). A Missouri plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s “Natural by Nature” whipped cream product was deceptive and misleading because the product contained sorbitan monostearate, a synthetic emulsifier and thickening agent. According to the complaint, the “Natural by Nature” claim, overall format, and appearance of the label have the tendency and capacity to mislead consumers by implying that the product is composed solely of natural ingredients, and the plaintiff paid a price premium due to these labeling elements. The plaintiff seeks to represent a Missouri class to pursue claims for breach of express warranty, violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, and unjust enrichment.
13 Petits Fours Presentations Angela Spivey will speak on the panel “Private Label & Barrel Pick Legal Issues” during the annual seminar of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators (NCSLA) on June 17. Amaru Sanchez spoke at the session “Social Impact Claims: From Aspiration to Substantiation” during the Annual Food Label Conference hosted by Prime Label Consultants on June 2. Publications & Media Sam Jockel was quoted by HBW Insight in the article “Deleting Self-Affirmed GRAS Option Could Stretch FDA’s Already Thin Food Safety Resources.” (April 15) Sam Jockel was quoted by HBW Insight in the article “Loper Bright Could Trip FDA on Self-Affirmed GRAS.” (April 15) Sam Jockel and Ashley Yull wrote the Food Engineering Magazine article “What’s Ahead for the GRAS Pathway?” (April 14) Other Resources Washington Trade Watch Blog – International trade laws, regulations, and executive orders are constantly evolving, and the pace of change has never been greater than it is now. The Trump Administration has promised further sweeping changes in U.S. trade policy that will impact virtually all industries and companies engaged in global trade and investment. Alston & Bird’s International Trade & Regulatory Team is working with clients to anticipate and respond to these developments in this blog. We aim to post useful content in real time to help you understand, prepare for, and remain in compliance as the international trade landscape evolves during the Trump Administration. Executive Order, Action & Proclamation Task Force – We are tracking and analyzing White House executive orders, proclamations, memoranda, and guidance and providing our clients with timely insights into their legal and regulatory impact. While all presidential actions can be found on The White House website, our attorneys and policy advisors break down the implications across industries, helping clients navigate compliance challenges and seize emerging opportunities. Whether you need strategic counsel or real-time updates, we are your dedicated partner in understanding and responding to executive actions that shape the legal landscape. We are here to help you stay informed, stay compliant, and stay ahead.
14 Contributing Authors Angela Spivey +1 404 881 7857 angela.spivey@alston.com Samantha Burdick +1 213 576 1190 sam.burdick@alston.com Rachel Lowe +1 213 576 2519 rachel.lowe@alston.com Amanda Newton Wellen +1 404 881 4809 amanda.wellen@alston.com Alan Pryor +1 404 881 7852 alan.pryor@alston.com Taylor Lin +1 404 881 7491 taylor.lin@alston.com Andrew Phillips +1 404 881 7183 andrew.phillips@alston.com Jonathan Hermann +1 404 881 7275 jon.hermann@alston.com Samuel Jockel +1 202 239 3037 sam.jockel@alston.com Sheena Hilton +1 404 881 7763 sheena.hilton@alston.com Troy Stram +1 404 881 7256 troy.stram@alston.com Jamie George +1 404 881 4951 jamie.george@alston.com Atlanta | Brussels | Century City | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C.
www.alston.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5