1 NOVEMBER 2025 No Contamination, No Injury: A Circuit Weighs In .................................................................................................3 Court Finds Pumpkin Candy Claims Have No Face Value . ................................................................................... 3 Class Certification Too Nutty for One Court.......................................................................................................... 4 A Plaintiff No Longer Drinks Alone . .................................................................................................................... 4 More Yelling About Yogurt .................................................................................................................................. 5 Ghee Whiz, Not Another Class Action!................................................................................................................. 5 Gut Reaction: Plaintiffs Find Probiotic Soda Representations Hard to Stomach. ................................................... 5 Lead Astray? New Class Action on Lead in Protein Powder .................................................................................. 6 A Sticky Health Halo Complaint ......................................................................................................................... 6 Kimchi Company in a Pickle . ............................................................................................................................. 7 Twin Suits Target Understatement of Sodium Content..........................................................................................7 There Is Nothing Fresh About These “No Preservatives” Cases . .......................................................................... 7 Cognitive Dissonance over Brain-Boosting Claims . ............................................................................................. 8 This Lawsuit Wants to Pump … You Up! ............................................................................................................. 8 Broth Maker in the Soup .................................................................................................................................... 8 Splinter-Specked Snacks: From Recall to Court .................................................................................................. 9 Harmful Hydration? ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Do You Recycle? Plaintiff’s Counsel Does! Greenwashing Allegations Reused in Complaints Against Retailers . ...10 No Fun in the Sun: Citric Acid Use Targeted by Plaintiffs in Missouri....................................................................10 Excuse Me Please, One More Drink .................................................................................................................. 10 Plaintiffs Whey the Value of Plant-Based Protein . ............................................................................................. 11 Petits Fours ......................................................................................................................................................12
2 Although cooler weather has brought a slight lull in new food and beverage labeling lawsuits, there still ain’t no rest for the plaintiffs. Complaints have continued to arrive at the courthouse steps since September, with “natural” ingredient cases again leading the pack. We hope you’ll don your coziest wool, pour a warm drink, and enjoy our sampling of the coolest labeling claims and hottest new court decisions as much as a box of holiday chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get. 23 “Natural” Ingredient Claims 9 Flavor/Ingredient Claims 9 Nutrient Content Claims 7 Health & Wellness Claims 6 Foreign Substances 5 Slack-fill Foreign Substances 4 Environmental, Social & Governance Claims 3 Servings per Container 1 Origin Claims 67 Cases Filed in September and October
3 Case Decisions No Contamination, No Injury: A Circuit Weighs In Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 24-3387 (6th Cir. Sep. 10, 2025). The maker of American pantry staples for young and old alike successfully defended its district court win at the Sixth Circuit. Appealing the standing-based dismissal of their class action complaint, the plaintiffs argued the defendant sold them peanut butter contaminated with salmonella, which placed them at risk of infection and denied them the benefit of their bargain. The plaintiffs also argued, for the first time on appeal, that even if the peanut butter products were not contaminated, the products were adulterated and caused them injury. In a brusque, eight-page opinion, the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ contamination cry as unsupported by their factual allegations. As the Sixth Circuit observed, the complaint did not allege the products the plaintiffs bought—which were the subject of a voluntary recall—were in fact contaminated, such as through sampling, testing, or other data or information indicating contamination was sufficiently widespread. The plaintiffs instead relied only on the voluntary recall to support their allegations of contamination, which was not enough to raise an inference of contamination for the products they purchased. The Sixth Circuit also quickly disposed of the plaintiffs’ adulteration argument by relying on every appellate court’s favorite doctrine: forfeiture. The plaintiffs never raised their adulteration argument before the district court, dooming their argument on appeal. Court Finds Pumpkin Candy Claims Have No Face Value Vidal v. The Hershey Co., No. 0:24-cv-60831 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025). Consumers who sought out but did not receive candies with toothy grins are similarly without smiles following the dismissal of their false advertising lawsuit. The plaintiffs rang the proverbial doorbell of the Southern District of Florida and asked for neither trick nor treat, but money damages flowing from a candy manufacturer’s alleged misrepresentations of the seasonal design of chocolate-covered and peanutbutter-filled treats. According to their complaint, the plaintiffs purchased pumpkin-shaped candies because the packaging advertised them as carved like a jack-o’-lantern. Upon opening the candies, the plaintiffs were disappointed to learn that they lacked any artistic pumpkin carvings, rendering them not only not “cool,” but “worthless.” The complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the plaintiffs sought to represent a class of consumers who purchased one of the expressionless candies in Florida. The court characterized the complaint’s allegations as less defined than the faces of the pumpkin-themed chocolates. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing based on their subjective, personal belief of the look of the candy, and they lacked support to argue that the candies were either defective or worthless without a jack-o’-lantern design. The plaintiffs also failed to allege what they would have paid for the candies without the decorative carvings, leaving to guesswork the value the plaintiffs allegedly placed on that design. The court dismissed the single-count complaint without prejudice, so stay tuned to see whether this Halloween ghost reappears like the Ghost of Christmas Past.
4 Case Decisions Class Certification Too Nutty for One Court Fukaya v. Daiso California LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00099 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025). The Northern District of California crumbled class certification in a suit against a grocery chain over foreignlanguage ingredient lists. The defendant sold pre-packaged tiramisu cookies and caramel corn with English-translation labels that omitted the tree nuts listed on the original Japanese-language panels. The plaintiff, who had a nut allergy, allegedly consumed these treats unaware of their nut-based contents, leading to a severe allergic reaction. The grocer recalled both products, but that did not stop the plaintiff from suing. The court held that the plaintiff needed more than mere peanuts of evidence to hold his class confection together. For one, the plaintiff’s class definition baked in all purchasers of the products, rather than just those affected by the nut omission, rendering the class overbroad. And the plaintiff did not offer a workable classwide damages model or establish numerosity for a narrowed allergy-only class. Individualized questions of who read, relied on, and was injured by the labels also predominated. Delivering another blow to the already-cracked shell of the proposed injunctive relief class, the court found no evidence of a companywide pattern or policy against the entire class. A Plaintiff No Longer Drinks Alone Pizzaro v. Sazerac Company Inc., No. 7:23-cv-02751 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2025). Here at the Digest, our bar tab has stayed open for the many lawsuits against a cinnamon-flavored-liquor manufacturer accused of falsely advertising its malt beverages. We have sampled flights over the years, poured from Illinois to New York and Florida, and we even take a nip of a recent complaint in this edition. Our readers who regularly pull up a stool might recall our coverage of one of these lawsuits after it survived a motion to dismiss in the Southern District of New York. We return for a refill of that case to report that the plaintiff no longer sits alone at the bar after the court granted her motion for class certification. To recap: the defendant created a version of its Fireball Whisky (and Parrot Bay Rum, which is the subject of a similar lawsuit that the court consolidated) that contained lower amounts of alcohol, allowing it to sell the lower ABV version as a malt beverage beyond liquor stores in several states. The plaintiff has alleged that she and similarly situated consumers were deceived into thinking the malt beverage version was in fact the higher-alcohol whisky version, not only because the two products’ labeling is similar but also because the malt beverage version is sold in 50 mL “mini” bottles that suggest a higher alcohol content. At the class certification stage, the defendant challenged commonality and predominance, arguing that individualized inquiries were required to determine whether a potential class member was misled, in part due to the different labels and bottles a given potential class member might have seen or purchased. The court disagreed, holding that a jury may find any combination of label features misleading to a reasonable customer, resolving the question for the entire class. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that damages cannot be resolved classwide. While the defendant critiqued the plaintiff’s choice-based conjoint survey to prove the alleged misbranding commanded a price premium, the court held that any potential flaws in the plaintiff’s damages model may be addressed at summary judgment or through cross-examination of the plaintiff’s expert at trial.
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
6 New Complaints erythritol,” which is manufactured through industrial fermentation and chemical processing, in beverages labeled with “No Artificial Sweeteners.” Going from stomachaches to heartache, the plaintiff counters the products’ “healthy” claims by citing a 2023 study that identified an association between erythritol and other artificial sweeteners and an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The plaintiff has asserted a claim for violations of California consumer protection laws, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty. The plaintiff in another lawsuit targets allegedly miscounted microbes, contending that the product falsely declares that each capsule contains 30 billion colony forming units (CFUs) of live and active micro-organisms when analytical testing purportedly found that each capsule contained an average of 8.75 billion CFUs, or less than 30% of the declared amount. All bloat and no benefit, the plaintiffs contend that the disclaimer on the back of the label, which states that “[e]ach capsule contains a minimum of 30 billion live cultures at the time of manufacture” is of “no consequence” because law and logic require labeling to be accurate through the shelf life of the product. The plaintiffs also cite labeling recommendations from the International Probiotics Association, which declare that products should contain 100% of probiotics declared on the label at the end of the shelf life, not at the time of manufacture. The plaintiffs assert violations of California’s consumer protection laws but also seek relief under New York’s consumer protection laws for a separate proposed New York subclass, and they seek restitution on behalf of a nationwide class. Lead Astray? New Class Action on Lead in Protein Powder Caballero v. Naked Whey Inc., No 2:25-at-01437 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2025). In California, a new class action complaint accuses a protein powder brand of mis-lead-ing the plaintiffs into believing its products were high quality and nutritious when in fact they contained unsafe amounts of lead. Central to the plaintiffs’ claim is an October 2025 Consumer Reports article that tested samples of several leading protein powders and found that the heavy metal was present in the at-issue products at 1,572% of Consumer Reports’“level of concern.” The plaintiffs cite the defendant’s representations that the products were “premium,” had “nothing to hide,” were “[v]erified for purity,” and were “[i]ndependently tested for heavy metals” to underscore their claims that the company breached California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and consumers legal remedies laws, in addition to a host of state-law causes of action. The plaintiffs’ bar is sure to follow this case closely—a favorable result for the plaintiffs may lead to copycat complaints against the other protein powders in the Consumer Reports article. A Sticky Health Halo Complaint Wright v. Johnny Pops LLC, No. 534696/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 5, 2025). Another lawsuit takes a cold look at one defendant’s ice pops, claiming the cheery fruit imagery and “Made With Simple Ingredients” representation give a “health halo” gloss to what is allegedly mostly water and organic cane sugar. Adding new flavors to a previous lawsuit we’ve covered, the complaint claims the pops include 10g added sugar per 55g serving, undermining the better-for-you vibe. The prolific plaintiff goes on to assert that the front-label callouts
7 New Complaints to organic ingredients and nostalgia-forward art let the brand charge a premium in violation of New York’s consumer protection statutes. The filing squeezes in allegations that the name “Rainbow Fruit Stacks” isn’t the common or usual name for a mostly sugar-and-water pop and that “simple ingredients” doesn’t cover lab-made flavor systems. Kimchi Company in a Pickle Tran v. Daesang Holdings California Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08745 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025). Two plaintiffs are spicy toward a defendant’s health and flavor representations of its kimchi products. The plaintiffs are feeling sour because they allegedly paid a price premium for kimchi labeled as “naturally fermented” before they learned something jarring: the defendant’s kimchi products allegedly contain sorbitol, which the plaintiffs characterize as a highly processed, added ingredient. For in-store consumers, sorbitol is allegedly buried in the ingredient list, and for those hoping to purchase this kimchi online, the defendant’s website allegedly does not include the ingredient list at all. These plaintiffs are feeling gutsy and hope to certify classes of California and New York consumers, as well as a nationwide class, alleging violations of both California and New York consumer protection laws. Twin Suits Target Understatement of Sodium Content Albertson v. The Vitamin Shoppe LLC, No. 25STCV25732 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 3, 2025). Hawkings v. 1st Phorm International LLC, No. 25STCV27404 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 17, 2025). In two new class action complaints, the plaintiffs are salty over protein bars that allegedly contained more sodium than advertised. Key to both cases is analytical testing commissioned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, which allegedly showed that the products contained more than 20% more sodium than the packages declared. According to the complaints, the plaintiffs relied on the declared sodium content when making their purchasing decisions and would not have purchased the products (or would have paid less) if the products had been accurately labeled. The plaintiffs also argue that the allegedly incorrect sodium declarations deemed the products misbranded under California law. The plaintiffs assert claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of warranty claims, demanding injunctive relief, monetary damages, other compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Time will tell whether these claims are worth their salt. There Is Nothing Fresh About These “No Preservatives” Cases Adams v. Aldi Inc., No. 534687/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 4, 2025). Handsome v. Continental Mills, No. 535263/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 10, 2025). Nesheiwat v. Gerber, No. 2025-55520 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 23, 2025). Spencer Sheehan & Co. is at it again, and there is nothing fresh about the recent trio of cases that he filed targeting “no preservatives” claims. All three complaints use nearly identical introductory verbiage and advance substantially similar arguments. The only real difference is the ingredient that allegedly serves a preservative function and, thus, renders the product misbranded: the bread mix contains silicon dioxide, the strawberry-flavored yogurt and fruit snacks contain ascorbic acid, and the banana- and vanillaflavored yogurt and fruit snacks contain sodium ascorbate.
8 New Complaints According to the complaints, these are all non-natural, synthetic ingredients that tend to, do, and/or can function as a preservative in the products. In the case of the bread mix, this argument is advanced despite acknowledgment in the complaint that the statement of ingredients indicates that silicon dioxide is intended to function as an “anti-caking agent” in the product. All three cases rely on a price premium theory—alleging that the plaintiffs paid more for the products than they would have had they known the truth about the products’ composition—and the claims are based on the packaging and labeling of the food products allegedly violating New York consumer protection laws. Cognitive Dissonance over BrainBoosting Claims Timmons v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 1:25-cv-12192 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2025). Calling it a no-brainer, one plaintiff has alleged that the brain-boosting representations on this supplement’s labeling are false, misleading, or deceptive because the two main active ingredients, “soy-derived phosphatidylserine (S-PS)” and “coffee cherry extract (CCE),” do not provide any of the represented brain health or performance benefits. The plaintiff contends that established science around the ingredients, including a study focused on the defendant’s product, do not support the alleged brain benefits. The plaintiff also attached to the complaint a report from a supposed “world renown [sic] brain health expert,” who reviewed a study cited by the defendants to support their representations and who concluded it has “material problems” and is unreliable. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers across 10 states, as well as an Illinoisspecific class, and she brings a single count for violation of Illinois’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. This Lawsuit Wants to Pump… You Up! Fetters v. Ecowise Wellness LLC, No. 2:25-cv-09753 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2025). In a complaint that will surely be the talk of Venice Beach, a Los Angeles–based plaintiff has sued manufacturers of creatine gummies over their labeling representations. The swole-seeking plaintiff accuses the defendants of capitalizing on demand for creatine—a type of protein that is naturally occurring in the human body and is believed to help build muscle and improve cognitive function—by representing their products contained 5,000 mg of creatine per serving. The plaintiff contends that he and other fitness-oriented consumers paid a premium for the products’ creatine content but were disappointed to learn from “independent third-party testing” that the products contain virtually no creatine at all. The plaintiff has brought claims for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff also seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief to prevent ongoing misrepresentation, and attorneys’ fees. Broth Maker in the Soup Keirsted v. Kettle and Fire, No. 6:25-cv-02037 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2025). Long heralded as comfort food, both as a foundational ingredient and in its own right, bone broth is as rich in flavor as in nutrients. Like the many protein-seeking plaintiffs we have covered at the Digest, one plaintiff has turned to bone broth for its protein content, which the defendant advertised as containing 19g of protein per carton. Not so,
9 New Complaints says a purportedly independent third-party tester, which the plaintiff contends measured only 14.6g of protein per carton, demonstrating that the bone broth was misbranded under both federal regulations and Florida law. Had the plaintiff been aware of the alleged protein shortage, she would not have paid a premium for the broth or would have sought out a cheaper alternative. The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass, and she asserts one claim for violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Splinter-Specked Snacks: From Recall to Court Wilim v. The Hillshire Brands Co., No. 1:25-cv-12281 (N.D. Ill. October 7, 2025). A plaintiff is claiming he got the short end of the stick when he purchased the defendant’s meat-on-a-stick products. According to the complaint, the defendants had to recall a whopping 58 million pounds of corn dogs and sausages on sticks due to the presence of wood within the products’ coatings. Like a skewer in a sausage, the plaintiff seeks to center himself in the recall narrative by contending he was injured when he purchased food “adulterated, unsafe, and unfit for human consumption.”The problem? The complaint does not allege that the plaintiff’s purchase actually contained any unintended source of fiber, let alone that he ate any splinters. Nevertheless, he argues that the scale of the recall makes it plausible that the product he purchased was contaminated, and he alleges he would not have bought it if he knew he was at risk of eating wood. The plaintiff asserts claims for breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment, and he seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers. Stick around to find out if this lawsuit grows roots or is smashed to splinters. Harmful Hydration? Chowdhury v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 1:25-cv-11530 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2025). Plaintiffs from across the country have brought suit against a pharmaceutical company that manufactures zero-sugar electrolyte drinks and powders. According to the complaint, these products are advertised as a healthy option for adults and children who are either sick or dehydrated or who need a low-calorie hydration option. The plaintiffs challenge several of the defendant’s representations, including “#1 Brand Recommended by Doctors,” and that the brand has been “backed by science since 1966.” According to the plaintiffs, those representations are undermined by the presence of sucralose in the products, which the plaintiffs contend is an unhealthy sweetener that breaks down in dangerous ways in the body. The plaintiffs assert a price-premium theory of liability, contending they would have paid less for the products had they known about the harmful effects of sucralose. The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of consumers in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and California, and they seek declaratory relief, damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.
10 New Complaints Do You Recycle? Plaintiff’s Counsel Does! Greenwashing Allegations Reused in Complaints Against Retailers Dimino v. Food 4 Less, No. 25CU057649C (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2025). Garcia v. Stater Bros. Markets, No. 25CU050156C (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 19, 2025). Two California grocery stores are the targets of the plaintiffs’ bar’s reduce litigate, reuse, recycle campaign. In nearly identical complaints filed by the same plaintiff’s counsel, consumers challenge the use of the “chasing arrows” symbol of recyclability on the labeling of the defendants’ products, which include coconut milk, chicken broth, orange juice, and plastic bags. The plaintiffs allege that they paid a premium price for products that are not in fact recyclable under California law due to insufficient access to recycling facilities that accept the products’ packaging. The complaints also assert without explanation that the defendants illegally charge a California Redemption Value (CRV) fee on certain bottled products even though the products are not CRV eligible. The plaintiffs bring two causes of action for violations of California’s consumer protection laws and seek to represent classes of California consumers, each of which—according to the plaintiffs—exceed 100,000 members. No Fun in the Sun: Citric Acid Use Targeted by Plaintiffs in Missouri Kimbrell v. The Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 25SL-CC11029 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Oct. 7, 2025). Zaitz v. Pepperidge Farm Inc., No. 25SL-CC11196 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Oct. 7, 2025). The plaintiffs’ bar in Missouri has set its sights on two large food manufacturers in the ever-expanding no preservatives/ citric acid litigation. Two new lawsuits, with nearly identical complaints filed by the same law firm, challenge the CapriSun drink and Goldfish crackers as misleadingly labeled because they contain “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives” and “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” on their packaging. The core allegations in these complaints imitate the numerous other lawsuits we’ve covered whose plaintiffs have challenged claims that food products contain no artificial flavors or preservatives after spotting citric acid on the ingredient list. As always, we’ll keep shining a light on these suits and update our readers if additional plaintiffs target a new product using this old theory. Excuse Me Please, One More Drink Hernandez v. Sazerac Company Inc., No. 1:25:cv-24568 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2025). Years after consumers first uncorked lawsuits over Fireball Cinnamon malt beverages, including one that recently survived class certification, yet another plaintiff has ordered what everyone else is having. Like those before him, this plaintiff accuses the maker of Fireball Cinnamon Whisky of a “bait-and-switch” scheme to pass off lower-alcohol malt beverages as the more famous and more alcoholic version and to lull unsuspecting Fireball Cinnamon Whisky enthusiasts into buying the inferior alternative. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Florida consumers, bringing a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
11 New Complaints Plaintiffs Whey the Value of PlantBased Protein Charalampopoulou v. Mush Foods Inc., No. 5:25-cv-07316 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2025). Willis-Albrigo v. DPL Trading Inc., No. 2:25-cv-08968 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025). It’s bulking season for one law firm, which filed two class action complaints in California federal courts alleging that, when it comes to plant-based protein, not all grams are created equal. That’s right—Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, or “PDCAAS,” remains stubbornly in the crosshairs of protein-seeking plaintiffs. (For the uninitiated, we’ve covered PDCAAS lawsuits at the molecular level many times before, including in 2024 and earlier this year.) The plaintiffs’ primary beef (or lack thereof) is that the defendants failed to properly disclose an accurate percent daily value for protein on the products’ nutrition facts panel. According to the complaints, this disclosure is legally required when a protein-content claim is made on the front label and is more important for plant-based proteins that are not as digestible for humans. The plaintiffs argue the defendants either omitted or overstated this percent daily value, deceiving consumers into believing they were getting more usable protein for their pennies. We’ll be watching this one closely to see if the plaintiffs’ suits sprout similar actions in the plant-based industry.
12 Petits Fours Presentations Sam Jockel will moderate the “SB 343 California’s Truth in Recycling Law: Analysis, Greenwashing Risks, Labeling Limits, and Other Potential Liabilities” panel at ACI’s EPR Think Tank on January 27. Publications & Media Sam Jockel, Angela Spivey, and Kristi Boswell wrote the advisory “USDA Proposes Updates to SNAP Rules, Seeks Public Comment” (October 13,2025).
13 Contributing Authors Heeth Varnedoe +1 404 881 7788 heeth.varnedoe@alston.com Amanda Newton Wellen +1 404 881 4809 amanda.wellen@alston.com Ashley Yull +1 202 239 3289 ashley.yull@alston.com Samuel Jockel +1 202 239 3037 sam.jockel@alston.com Rachel Lowe +1 213 576 2519 rachel.lowe@alston.com Andrew Phillips +1 404 881 7183 andrew.phillips@alston.com Angela Spivey +1 404 881 7857 angela.spivey@alston.com Alan Pryor +1 404 881 7852 alan.pryor@alston.com Karly Bader +1 212 905 9031 karly.bader@alston.com Mary Chandler Beam +1 212 905 9074 mary.chandler.beam@alston.com Troy Stram +1 404 881 7256 troy.stram@alston.com Samantha Burdick +1 213 576 1190 sam.burdick@alston.com Ryan D’Souza +1 202 239 3260 ryan.dsouza@alston.com Jamie George +1 404 881 4951 jamie.george@alston.com Jonathan Hermann +1 404 881 7275 jon.hermann@alston.com Sheena Hilton +1 404 881 7763 sheena.hilton@alston.com Chris Kelleher +1 404 881 7435 chris.kelleher@alston.com Robert Hawes +1 202 239 3015 robert.hawes@alston.com Benjamin James +1 202 239 3482 benjamin.james@alston.com Esmat Hanano +1 404 881 7742 esmat.hanano@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 MzI4MjIwNg==