1 SEPTEMBER 2025 Allegation of “Adulterated” Avocado Oil Fails to Stick—For Now ...........................................................................3 Cause Lovin’ Him Was Red, Salmon Red . ........................................................................................................... 4 Spicy Suit Stirs Debate over Regional Cuisine ..................................................................................................... 4 The Monk Fruit Suit Reincarnate!. ...................................................................................................................... 5 Soy Lecithin Latest Target in War on Preservatives .............................................................................................. 5 Plaintiffs Barking Up New Tree in Citric Acid Suits . ............................................................................................. 6 Plaintiffs Seek a Sweet Payday, but Are They in for a (Sugar) Crash Instead?......................................................... 6 A Tropical Treat or a Bowl Lot of Trouble?. ........................................................................................................... 7 New Flavors, Old Story . ..................................................................................................................................... 7 100% Juice, 100% Target .................................................................................................................................. 8 Protein? Yes, Peas! ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Plaintiff Claims Snack-Sized Bars Contain Macro Amounts of Sugar......................................................................8 More Trouble in the Turkey Bacon Aisle .............................................................................................................. 9 Empty Promises: Slack-Fill Suits Target Snack and Sweetener Packaging ............................................................ 9 Smokehouse Sheriff Strikes Again .................................................................................................................... 10 Toxic Tentacles? .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Nonprofit Says Defendant’s Cocoa Product Marketing Isn’t So Sweet ................................................................ 10 Soybean Oil the Subject of Sizzling Sofrito Suit . ................................................................................................ 11 Petits Fours.......................................................................................................................................................12
2 While decisions and motions this summer stayed true to time-tested BBQ technique—low and slow— plaintiffs fired up their grills to file 71 searing-hot new lawsuits in July and August. Much of the volume was attributable to 34 new “natural” ingredient cases. For a finger-lickin’ good sampler, we’ve gathered the details and served up a chart highlighting the variety of those new suits—a taste of the latest labeling claims. 34 “Natural” Ingredient Claims 11 Health & Wellness Claims 9 Servings per Container 5 Flavor/Ingredient Claims 4 Nutrient Content Claims 3 Foreign Substances 3 Slack-fill 1 Environmental, Social & Governance Claims 1 Origin Claims Cases Filed in July and August
3 Case Decisions Allegation of “Adulterated” Avocado Oil Fails to Stick—For Now Smith v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 3:24-cv-06834 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2025). A favorite neighborhood grocer with a cult-like following slipped past allegations about its private-label avocado oil. In a class action filed in California earlier this year, the plaintiffs had accused the defendant of slippery marketing, claiming that it falsely represented that its avocado oil contained only avocado oil when in fact, they alleged, “independent laboratory testing” and a news article confirmed that the product was “adulterated” with other oils—namely, sunflower and safflower oil. In a concise order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge James Donato summarily rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations. The court found that the allegations— which struck arguably impressive hand-waving poses about the “testing” and news article—nonetheless were “too vague to plausibly state a claim or provide defendants with fair notice of the allegations they will be called upon to answer”under either Rule 9(b) or Rule 12(b)(6). The court did, however, grant the plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs took Judge Donato up on the offer, and they filed an amended complaint that seemingly ditched the hand-waving in favor of attaching the purported laboratory testing to the complaint. We can only assume that this is a plaintiff’s proverbial equivalent to bringing the receipts, but time will tell whether the plaintiffs’ allegations will stick.
4 New Complaints Cause Lovin’ Him Was Red, Salmon Red Berard v. Colewillaidan LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06462 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2025). In the popular Taylor Swift song, the future Mrs. Kelce connotes “love” with the color “red.” Much like in TS’s song, your average shopper connotes “red” with positive warm fuzzies, especially when it comes to salmon, at least according to a new class action filed in California. The Red Complaint (plaintiff’s version) accuses a food manufacturer of capitalizing on this color craze and misleading consumers about the origins of its canned salmon’s desired reddish hue. According to the complaint, wild salmon get their— well, salmon—color from their natural diet. But as every discerning salmon shopper undoubtedly must know (alas, I am not one of them), because farm-raised salmon do not receive the beta carotenes that wild salmon do, they take a rather white or greyish color instead. It therefore should be little surprise that farmed fish purveyors use coloring agents—specifically astaxanthin or canthaxanthin—to mimic the color of wild-caught counterparts. Despite this common knowledge, the plaintiff cries foul because the defendant failed to disclose the presence of artificial colors in its canned salmon products, which misled consumers into thinking they were purchasing higher quality salmon. Apparently inspired by their namesake, notable plaintiff firm Bursor &—ahem—Fisher appears to be taking an interest in artificially colored fish cases. It is representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit and filed a similar lawsuit in the Southern District of California (Beal v. MW Polar Foods Corporation, No. 3:25-cv01358) that alleged the defendant failed to disclose the use of artificial colors in its salmon products. While Bursor may be temporarily focused on these allegedly fishy colors, artificial colorants have become a frequent target of the MAHA movement, which could lead to further complaints targeting the use of artificial colors as a form of deception. We’ll continue to monitor this trend to see whether these complaints appear headed upstream or are likely to be the next big wave of attacks by the plaintiffs’ bar. Spicy Suit Stirs Debate over Regional Cuisine Tate v. Reily Foods Co., No. 25STCV20401 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 9, 2025). Forget Hollywood—a plaintiff in a California suit is donning her cowboy hat and headed to Texas (or at least, headed to the store for products from Texas). In the suit, the plaintiff alleges she purchased a line of chili seasonings based on the products’ on-label representation that they were “THE TEXAS ORIGINAL.” According to the plaintiff, the defendant deliberately misled members of the public to purchase the products by implying they were produced in Texas, when in fact they were produced in neighboring Louisiana. Had the plaintiff known the products were from Louisiana, she allegedly would not have purchased them or would have paid less for them. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California endconsumers who purchased the products within the last four years, and she brings claims for purported violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief.
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
6 New Complaints the product. As with nearly all Sheehan-led state-court complaints, the complaint gives the good ole college try to stay in New York state court by eschewing any claim for statutory or punitive damages to avoid removal. Plaintiffs Barking Up New Tree in Citric Acid Suits Cortez v. Post Holdings, No. 2:25-cv-02321 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025). Orozco v. Target Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-07254 (C.D. Cal Aug. 6, 2025). Pet food producers are the newest residents of the plaintiffs’ bar’s no preservatives / citric acid litigation doghouse. At least two new suits have been unleashed in California alleging that these companies’ pet food brands are misleadingly labeled as containing “No Artificial Preservatives” when each product contains “manufactured” citric acid. While the suits target a new type of product, the complaints support the adage that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. The core allegations mirror the numerous lawsuits covered by this publication in which plaintiffs have challenged claims that human food products contain no artificial preservatives after sniffing out citric acid on the ingredient list. We’ll remain your ever-vigilant watchdog and be sure to update our readers if additional plaintiffs put their paws on a new product to serve this type of complaint. Plaintiffs Seek a Sweet Payday, but Are They in for a (Sugar) Crash Instead? Hankins v. Simply Delicious Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01758 (S.D. Cal. July 9, 2025). Two California consumers claim they were duped into buying PB&J oat bars because the product packaging gave the misimpression that the bars were healthy—when, in fact, the bars contained 16 grams of sugar (as disclosed on the nutrition facts panel). At the motion to dismiss stage, the nutrition facts panel is sure to be an area of focus. The consumers will undoubtedly argue that they were not required to look beyond supposedly misleading representations to discover the truth from the nutrition panel on the side of the box. That may be a tough sell. Recent Ninth Circuit precedent makes clear that a front label must be unambiguously deceptive for a defendant to be precluded from insisting that the front label be considered together with the rest of the packaging. But here, the consumers have not identified any alleged misrepresentations on the front of the packaging. All the statements they claim that imply the bars are healthy are on the side and back panels of the packaging, including statements made directly under the nutrition facts panel, in roughly the same-size font. The consumers cannot have their PB&J and eat it too: if the statements that would allegedly confuse a reasonable consumer are on the side (and back) of the packaging, a reasonable consumer would have also viewed the disclosed amount of sugars on that same side panel.
7 New Complaints A Tropical Treat or a Bowl Lot of Trouble? Logan v. Playa Bowls LLC, No. 1:25-cv-06640 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025). A multistate class action filed in the Southern District of New York accuses a quick-service purveyor of acai bowls and other related “superfood” products of concealing its use of artificial sweeteners and preservatives. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of falsely representing that its “Playa Acai” is pure and undiluted acai when, in reality, the company adds sweeteners like erythritol and stevia, as well as an alleged preservative in citric acid. To top it off, the plaintiff sprinkles on allegations that the defendant conceals this information from its website and in-store menu boards, making it difficult for health-conscious consumers to find out the truth about what is in their bowls—a discovery that the plaintiff purportedly made only after demanding the full ingredient list from the defendant’s corporate headquarters. The plaintiff seeks to represent class members in more than a dozen states who were likewise allegedly duped into buying what they believed to be low-sugar, natural acai bowls. The plaintiff brings claims under each relevant state’s consumer protection statute and asks the court to award monetary damages and enjoin the defendant from concealing the not-so-natural ingredients. New Flavors, Old Story Stinnie v. Apple & Eve LLC, No. 158884/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 13, 2025). Barron v. Aldi Inc. (New York), No. 034829/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 18, 2025). Plaintiffs targeting allegedly artificial malic acid are nothing if not consistent. In two class actions filed in New York state courts, the plaintiffs add new flavors to well-worn allegations that manufacturers are misleadingly using malic acid as a flavoring agent. According to these recent complaints, a manufacturer of salt-and-vinegar chips and a manufacturer of apple juice expressly or impliedly advertised natural flavoring, but they allegedly failed to disclose they use synthetically derived malic acid. The plaintiffs contend that the manufacturers’ failure to make that disclosure on their packaging is false and misleading, despite the disclosure of malic acid in the products’ ingredient lists. The plaintiffs therefore contend that they and classes of New York plaintiffs paid a premium beyond what they would have otherwise paid. The plaintiffs each bring a single cause of action for purported violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350.
8 New Complaints 100% Juice, 100% Target Borowsky v. Tree Top Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05533 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2025). Correa v. Sun Tropics Inc., No. 4:25-cv-05500 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2025). Danzy v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 4:25-cv-06792 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025). Georgopoulos v. Langers Juice Co. Inc., No. 3:25-cv-06514 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025). Juice manufacturers may be feeling the squeeze after a single law firm filed four class actions in the Northern District of California. According to the nearly identical complaints, “100% juice” and other similar claims signal to reasonable consumers that a beverage is “comprised [sic] of solely fruit and fruit-derived ingredients” (or “juice and juice products”). The complaints all allege that these claims are false and misleading when made with products that contain “synthetic, non-natural” ingredients, such as ascorbic acid or citric acid. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes and California subclasses of consumers who were purportedly deceived by these label representations, and they claim violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law, as well as claims for breach of express warranty. Protein? Yes, Peas! Plascencia v. Olympian Labs Inc., No. 2:25-cv-06841 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2025). The plaintiff alleges that a pea-protein product’s label— which states it contains 25 grams of protein per serving— is false and misleading. Much like prior “protein-conscious” litigants, the plaintiff argues that the product does not actually contain “fully bioavailable, high-quality protein,” which is allegedly important for those who care about their health and pea-k physical performance. The plaintiff says there is no whey he would have paid the product’s price had he known, and he seeks a number of remedies under California’s consumer protection laws, including to enjoin the defendant from continuing its allegedly unlawful practice and to force the defendant to engage in a corrective advertising campaign. Plaintiff Claims Snack-Sized Bars Contain Macro Amounts of Sugar Testone v. Go Macro LLC, No. 3:25-cv-01743 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2025). A health-conscious California plaintiff is bitter about the amount of added sugar in snack and protein bars she recently purchased and consumed. The plaintiff claims that the defendant food manufacturer misleads consumers into believing the bar products are healthy by using label claims such as “Live Long,”“Eat Positive,” and “Be Well,” when the products contain large amounts of added sugar. The complaint provides granular-level details about the
9 New Complaints amounts of sugar in each of the product varieties, as well as the potential health impacts of excess sugar consumption. Notably, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant had a duty to disclose these potential health risks and that including the amount of added sugar on the nutrition facts panel does not satisfy the duty because consumers (1) do not read the nutrition facts panel; or (2) lack the knowledge to accurately assess it even if they do read it. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers and brings claims for violations of California’s consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Time will tell whether these sugary claims will crystallize or melt under pressure from the defendant. More Trouble in the Turkey Bacon Aisle Horne v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 6:25-cv-01630 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2025). Ingenuity abounds among food manufacturers and the plaintiffs’ bar alike—turkey can be turned into bacon, and voluntary recalls for contaminated products can be turned into false advertising lawsuits. A Florida plaintiff claims he was deceived into buying turkey bacon that may have contained Listeria and that the defendant had a duty to warn him of that potential contamination before his purchase. According to the complaint, consumers “reasonably expect that food products sold by manufacturers such as Defendant are safe and free from harmful substances” and “relied on this expectation when purchasing” the turkey bacon products, which “were, in fact, contaminated—or at risk of contamination—with Listeria monocytogenes.” While the plaintiff alleges that the products that he purchased “were worthless because they possibly contained Listeria monocytogenes,” he does not allege that the products he gobbled up were actually contaminated or that he became sick after consuming them. The complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class and a Florida subclass, alleging violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Empty Promises: Slack-Fill Suits Target Snack and Sweetener Packaging Oh v. Sweet Oak Parent LLC, No. 2:25-cv-06553 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2025). Oh v. Target Brands Inc., No. 2:25-cv-06843 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2025). A California consumer has filed two (nearly identical) class actions against manufacturers of sweetener and freeze-dried peach snacks, alleging that the products are deceptively packaged in opaque containers that are “over half empty,” leaving consumers with a sour taste when they open the products. The complaints claim that the packaging sugarcoats the truth, misleading consumers into believing they are purchasing more product than they actually receive. The plaintiff asserts that the empty space, or “slackfill,” serves no functional or lawful purpose and that none of the regulatory exceptions for slack-fill apply. The plaintiff asserts violations of California consumer protection laws in both lawsuits. Notably, these suits mark a shift in flavor for
10 New Complaints consumer protection statutes, seeking to obtain damages for the alleged “premium” paid for the almonds, but in line with the Sheriff’s new M.O. for similarly situated state-court complaints, eschewing claims for any penalty, statutory damages, or punitive damages as a way to avoid removal and remain in state court. Toxic Tentacles? Consumer Advocacy Group Inc. v. Bristol Farms DBA Lazy Acres Natural Market, No. 258TCV20065 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 8, 2025). A new complaint alleges that the defendant violated California’s Proposition 65 by failing to warn consumers that its“Octopus in Olive Oil”contains lead. The complaint’s factual allegations are fishline-thin and fail to identify the source of its metallurgic allegations. The suit demands penalties, warning labels, and presumably, a less toxic tentacle in your next can. Time will tell whether the plaintiff will successfully convince the court to join it in sticking to the calamari. Nonprofit Says Defendant’s Cocoa Product Marketing Isn’t So Sweet International Rights Advocates Inc. v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02603 (D.D.C. August 8, 2025). A Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit organization dedicated to human rights and global supply chain issues has challenged a popular chocolate manufacturer’s marketing of its cocoa products. The plaintiff alleges that label claims such as “Responsibly sourced cocoa” and “Better Farming, this prolific plaintiff (and his attorney): both complaints were filed directly in federal court, skipping the usual recipe of starting in state court with removal to follow. Smokehouse Sheriff Strikes Again O’Connor v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 160511/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 10, 2025). Infamous plaintiffs’ counsel Spencer Sheehan is fueling the fire of those dubbing him the “Smokehouse Sheriff,” filing yet another class action against the grower of a popular line of almond snacks. The latest Sheehan special double-dips from his own previously filed suits against the same defendant (some previous suits covered here, here, and here), alleging that its Smokehouse Almonds are misbranded because instead of getting “smoked taste from a smokehouse, and/or the burning of hardwoods, the fine print reveals”the almonds derive their smoky flavor from artificial “liquid smoke,” a compound Sheehan’s complaint describes as “quasi-toxic” and allegedly banned in Europe due to “genotoxicity.” While prior suits against the popular almond line have been a mixed bag (some suits have been dismissed in full, while others have survived a motion to dismiss in full or in part), Sheehan’s latest complaint follows a similar blueprint, attacking the defendant for its use of the term “Smokehouse” and its red banner “evocative of fire,” which the plaintiff alleges caused him to expect the almonds were made in a smokehouse. The plaintiff purportedly relied on those representations to his detriment and paid more for the almonds than he otherwise would have had he known the truth. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New York consumers for alleged violations of New York’s
11 New Complaints Soybean Oil the Subject of Sizzling Sofrito Suit Lopez v. Goya Foods, No. 816325/2025E (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 3, 2025). A plaintiff’s expectations were foiled by oil. According to his complaint, a sofrito cooking base labeled as containing vegetables and herbs in olive oil contains hardly any olive oil at all. Instead, the complaint alleges that the predominant oil ingredient derives from soybeans, rendering the label misbranded. Had the plaintiff known the product contained mostly soybean oil, which he contends lacks both the flavor and health benefits of olive oil, he alleges he would have paid less for it. The plaintiff brings a claim under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and he hopes to represent olive the similarly situated New York consumers who purchased the product for their personal use and consumption. Better Lives, Better Cocoa” mislead consumers into believing that the defendant’s products are responsibly and sustainably sourced. According to the plaintiff, on-theground investigations in collaboration with a whistleblower revealed that farms within the defendant’s supply chain rely heavily on child labor and that workers are underpaid. In a deviation from the typical complaint, the plaintiff here does not seek damages or certification of a class of chocolate consumers. Instead, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the defendant’s purportedly deceptive practices, along with attorneys’ fees. The complaint asserts just one cause of action for violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which explicitly permits a public interest organization to bring an action “on behalf of the interests of a consumer or a class of consumers.”
12 Petits Fours Presentations Ashley Yull will speak on the FDLI webinar “Updates on #MAHA: Recognizing Changes in the Self-Affirmed GRAS Process, Removal of Color Additives, and More” on October 1. Sam Jockel and Angela Spivey will lead a roundtable discussion on “The Impact of the MAHA Movement” at the FoodBev Exchange on October 7. Publications & Media Sam Jockel, Angela Spivey, and Benjamin James wrote the advisory “MAHA Strategy Report Is Out: Key Takeaways for the Food & Beverage Industry” (September 15, 2025).
13 Contributing Authors Atlanta | Brussels | Century City | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C. 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 Amaru Sánchez +1 202 239 3263 amaru.sanchez@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
www.alston.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5