5 New Complaints More Yelling About Yogurt Seaman v. Cibo Vita Inc., No. 531731/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 13, 2025). Trick-or-treaters have finished their Halloween march, but Spencer Sheehan and his reliable roster of plaintiffs still have candy on the brain. One plaintiff claims to seek out and consume yogurt products for their health properties. It was her yearning for yummy yogurt that led her to purchase the defendant’s yogurt-covered dried berries, which she contends it advertised as health food. In reality, she contends, the yogurt coating is nothing more than a garden-variety sugary concoction. According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the manufacturer misbranded the yogurt berry product and misled consumers about the amount of yogurt contained in the confectionary, candy-like coating, allowing it to sell the product at a premium price it would not otherwise fetch. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New York citizens who also purchased the yogurty snacks for consumption, and she brings a single count for violation of New York’s General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Ghee Whiz, Not Another Class Action! Legrier v. Ancient Organics, No. 161754/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 4, 2025). A New York consumer claims she was deceived by labeling representations indicating that the ghee (clarified butter) she purchased contained “the very best fat one can eat,” that the ghee was “High [in] MCFAs” (medium-chain fatty acids), and that she should “Eat Good Fat.” She alleges that these statements were nutrient-content claims that did not comply with New York labeling laws (which incorporate federal labeling provisions) and seeks to certify a class of fellow New York consumers. Ghee, where have I seen those allegations before? Oh right, California consumers filed suit against the same manufacturer in 2022, but the court rejected the plaintiffs’ nutrientcontent-claim theory, finding that none of the challenged statements qualified as nutrient-content claims—they did not characterize the amount, as opposed to quality, of the fat in the product and none of the statements used any variation of the root word “health.” The court did allow the plaintiffs to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage on their theory that, although not nutrient-content claims, the challenged statements could still mislead consumers into believing the product was healthy when high levels of saturated fat in the product rendered it unhealthy or dangerous. But the plaintiffs were unable to certify a class, failing to proffer common evidence demonstrating that a significant portion of the consuming public could be confused by the labeling. Will the New York plaintiff make it any further? We’ll see, but butter not get her hopes up! Gut Reaction: Plaintiffs Find Probiotic Soda Representations Hard to Stomach Sicairos v. Cove Drinks Inc., No. 2:25-cv-09951 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025). Bibey v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 3:25-cv-08473 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2025). Two purveyors of probiotic sodas are alleged to have misbranded and falsely advertised their products. The plaintiff in one lawsuit contends that the probiotic soda he purchased is marketed as healthy and containing no artificial sweeteners or sugar, when it in fact contained erythritol, an allegedly artificial and synthetic compound with sweetening properties. According to the plaintiff, reasonable consumers are queasy at the idea of the presence of “commercial
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI4MjIwNg==