5 New Complaints The Monk Fruit Suit Reincarnate! Kinman v. Saraya USA Inc., No. 1:25-cv-07539 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2025). A plaintiff has sued a monk-fruit-based sweetener maker in what appears to be a reincarnation of a lawsuit from 2022, which contained similar charges and survived a motion to dismiss before it was abruptly (and voluntarily) dismissed. The plaintiff targets the sweetener’s labeling that features a Buddhist monk and that touts its main ingredient as a “rare superfood prized for its sweetness and ability to raise chi, or life energy.” According to the complaint, the product is deceptive because it contains almost no monk fruit. Instead, it is composed mostly of erythritol, a chemically processed sugar alcohol that poses “known health risks.” The plaintiff has outdone her 2022 counterpart by engaging a thirdparty test laboratory that allegedly determined that the product contains only 1.15% monk fruit extract. The defendant, however, apparently does not care much for reincarnations. In moving to dismiss, the defendant seeks sanctuary under qualifying language on its product’s packaging, cites the product’s nutrition facts panel (which lists erythritol first, before monk fruit extract), and argues that the plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the FDA’s regulatory scheme, among other defenses. We will monitor to see which side here will get to taste sweet, sweet victory. Soy Lecithin Latest Target in War on Preservatives Lukas v. Flora Food US Inc., No. 618126/2025, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 22, 2025). Long-time readers know that over the past few years, plaintiffs have challenged a bevy of consumer products for advertising their goods as containing no artificial preservatives, only to be hit with class actions challenging the inclusion of ingredients like citric acid and DL malic acid. In an effort to keep things fresh, our favorite plaintiffs’ counsel, Spencer Sheehan, has expanded his preservative repertoire. In a new suit filed in New York Supreme Court, Sheehan attacks the labeling of Country Crock brand vegetable oil spread for claiming it contains “No Artificial Preservatives” despite being made with soy lecithin, which Sheehan claims is a “non-natural, synthetic, and/or chemical substance, inconsistent with what purchasers understand as ‘natural.’” The Sheehan-represented plaintiff alleges she was bamboozled by the claims “Farm Grown Ingredients,” “Country Fresh Taste,” and “No Artificial Preservatives” listed on packages of the Country Crock spread, leading her to pay a premium for the product, which she expected to be free from non-natural ingredients. Despite harkening the MAHA Commission’s attack on ultra-processed foods (UPF) by claiming synthetic preservatives are often a marker for UPFs, the complaint feebly claims that the soy lecithin used in the product “tends to, does, and/or can, function as a preservative.” Based on the alleged deception, the plaintiff lodges claims under New York’s consumer protection statute and seeks to certify a class of similarly situated New Yorkers looking to recover their alleged overpayments for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5