1 JUNE 2026 Nothing Artificial About It: Ninth Circuit Affirms “Natural” Class Cert............................................................................... 3 Carrot Recall Suit Meets the Chopping Block.................................................................................................................. 3 100% Chocolate Challenge Is Half-Baked...................................................................................................................... 3 A Coop with No View...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Does an Apple a Day Keep the Litigation Away? (Asking for a Friend)............................................................................... 4 Sweet Relief for “No Artificial Sweeteners” Claim............................................................................................................ 5 Spicy Salsa Claims Get the Tummy Troubles................................................................................................................... 5 Still Surfing the Citric Acid Wave.................................................................................................................................... 6 Only the Best for Baby................................................................................................................................................... 6 Supercharging False Labeling Complaint with Products Theories?.................................................................................. 7 Consumer Alleges a Bone to Pick with Dog Food............................................................................................................ 7 Not Quite Cultured Enough?........................................................................................................................................... 8 Consumers Claim Stevia Fails to Leave a Sweet Impression............................................................................................ 8 Foil Me Once ... ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 More Trash Talk Involving “Recyclable” Claims............................................................................................................... 9 Coffee Provides Purported Grounds for Disappointment............................................................................................... 10 Lawsuit Tests “Limitless” Supplements’ Allegedly Limited Naturalness ......................................................................... 10 Matcha Ado About Nothing?........................................................................................................................................ 10 Honey Still a Hot Target............................................................................................................................................... 11 Heaping Serving Allegations Against Creamer.............................................................................................................. 11 Petits Fours................................................................................................................................................................. 12
2 The food and beverage litigation buffet just keeps getting refilled. This edition features a Ninth Circuit “natural” class cert ruling, a tourist’s fiery salsa misadventure, and corn dressed up as apples. Citric acid suits continue to multiply like fruit flies, while new complaints target everything from kratom energy drinks to “ceremonial grade” matcha. Whether it’s greenwashing baby products or phantom scoops in your coffee creamer, the Digest is here to serve it all up. Grab a fork—this one’s a full spread! 31 “Natural” Ingredient Claims 16 Flavor/Ingredient Claims 7 Environmental, Social & Governance Claims 6 Health & Wellness Claims 4 Servings per Container 3 Nutrient Content Claims 3 Slack-fill 1 Foreign Substances 1 Origin Claims 4 Other 76 Cases Filed in March and April
3 Case Decisions Nothing Artificial About It: Ninth Circuit Affirms “Natural” Class Cert Drake v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, No. 24-7158 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026). The Ninth Circuit sweetened plaintiffs’ day when it affirmed certification in a class action challenging the “natural” label on a line of fruit snack products. The plaintiffs alleged that a major supplement manufacturer’s “Natural Fruit Bites” were materially misleading because the products contained synthetic ingredients. The district court granted class certification for the plaintiffs’ claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the New York General Business Law. The manufacturer appealed, arguing that the proposed classes included uninjured purchasers and that reliance and injury could not be established on a classwide basis. The Ninth Circuit wasn’t buying it. Affirming certification, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The plaintiffs’ price-premium theory—if the label caused consumers to overpay, that question is resolved classwide—carried the day. The court also found the plaintiffs’ proposed conjoint damages model sufficient at this stage, holding that the plaintiffs need only show a reliable model, not actually execute it. The panel also concluded that the plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements, though a partial dissent would have reversed certification of the California class on the ground that the defendant rebutted classwide reliance. For now, however, the class lives to fight another day. Nothing artificial about that result. Carrot Recall Suit Meets the Chopping Block Catalano v. Grimmway Enterprises Inc., No. 7:24-cv-08817 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2026). A class action filed against one of the nation’s largest carrot producers failed to take root after a New York federal court found the plaintiff lacked standing. The suit orange-inated from the producer’s voluntary recall of whole and baby carrots due to potential E. coli contamination. The plaintiff claimed he was deceived into purchasing the carrots because they were not advertised as containing E. coli, and he alleged that he would not have purchased them— or would have paid less—had he known the truth. But the plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts (like the specific purchase date) to demonstrate that the carrots he bought were actually subject to the recall. Worse still, he alleged that he purchased and “used” (we can only hope he meant “ate”) the carrots, without claiming he experienced any E. coli symptoms. The only reasonable inference to draw from that allegation, the court said, was that the product was not contaminated. And a mere “risk of contamination” could not establish the concrete harm necessary for standing. The bottom line? The existence of a recall alone does not establish that a particular unit of a product was defective or contaminated and therefore, without more, cannot establish standing. That rule should be easy enough to recall! 100% Chocolate Challenge Is Half-Baked Foster v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 1:24-cv-08536 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2026). A large chocolatier prevailed in its motion to dismiss claims arising out of its “100% real chocolate” representation after
4 Case Decisions the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the plaintiff’s complaint was “half-baked” and “100% dismissed.” We love when a court writes our puns for us! The plaintiff brought a class action challenging the “100% real chocolate” label representation on the defendant’s chocolate chips bags as deceptive and misleading because the products she purchased contain soy lecithin and natural flavors—ingredients not sourced from cacao beans. The court found that reasonable consumers would not be deceived because consumable chocolate is necessarily a composite product that contains other ingredients, as recognized by industry definitions and the FDA’s standards of identity for various cacao products. The court also found no ambiguity on the label and nothing to suggest to consumers that the product contained only cacao beans. The court said it best: “If you’re skeptical, try choking down a handful of raw chocolate nibs, and see what happens.” Touché, Judge. Ultimately, the court found the allegations lacked substance—proving the case wasn’t quite ready for consumption. A Coop with No View Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2026). A consumer class action against an egg producer over “cage free” representations can fly the coop, according to a federal court in Illinois. The plaintiff has accused the defendant of falsely and fraudulently advertising its hens as “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment,” concealing from the public their true living conditions in industrial compounds with no outdoor access and windowless rooms. With its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued that the complaint was nothing more than an empty shell, and that its “cage free” representation complied with state regulatory definitions. The court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the “who, what, where, and when” of the alleged fraud. While it agreed that the “cage free” representation complied with regulations, the court found it plausible that reasonable consumers might interpret additional representations—“free to roam” in a “natural” and “pleasant” environment—to imply some outdoor access. Still, the court’s order did not meet all the plaintiff’s eggspectations—the court dismissed the claim for injunctive relief, concluding he failed to plausibly allege a real and immediate threat of future harm. An omelet of wins and losses, if you will. Does an Apple a Day Keep the Litigation Away? (Asking for a Friend) Borowsky v. Tree Top Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05533 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026). A federal court in California found enough juice in one plaintiff’s claims to permit discovery. The court denied in part a juice maker’s motion to dismiss claims that its “100% Apple Juice” products are mislabeled because they contain ascorbic acid derived from corn, not apples. As the complaint alleged, a USDA report states that “all commercial ascorbic acid [is] synthetically produced,” and it cited the defendant’s own quality compliance summary, which purportedly concedes that its ascorbic acid is “derived from a multi-step process that typically begins with corn.” In declining to dismiss the plaintiff’s consumer protection, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment claims, the court observed that the product’s label identifies ascorbic acid but did not disclose its non-apple origin. That, the court held, was enough of a kernel to bend the court’s ear and squeeze past dismissal.
5 Case Decisions Sweet Relief for “No Artificial Sweeteners” Claim Zinger v. Bai Brands, No. 1:24-cv-03993 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2026). A beverage maker got a clean finish in the Southern District of New York, where the court granted summary judgment on claims that its “No Artificial Sweeteners” label was anything but. The plaintiff’s theory centered on erythritol— an ingredient derived through fermentation—which she claimed rendered the label misleading under New York’s consumer protection statutes. But after full discovery, the court found the plaintiff’s case had gone flat, lacking evidence that reasonable consumers would view erythritol as “artificial.” The case fizzled on the “reasonable consumer” element. The court emphasized that internal company documents, dictionary definitions, and even how the ingredient is manufactured did little to show how consumers actually understand the term “artificial.” A sweeping definition of “artificial” as simply “man-made,” the court noted, would turn everything from bread to birthday cake into suspect labeling—an outcome the court found implausible. The plaintiff’s survey evidence didn’t sweeten the deal because respondents were primed to focus on how erythritol is made—rather than how consumers ordinarily evaluate ingredients. And a handful of consumer complaints also failed to move the needle. With no triable issue of fact, the court granted summary judgment and mooted the pending class certification and expert motions. For now, the defendant’s labeling has weathered the challenge—but in a litigation landscape still bubbling with artificial-ingredient claims, this likely won’t be the last sip of this debate. Spicy Salsa Claims Get the Tummy Troubles Manz v. Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1, No. 1:24-cv-07457 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026). In this classic coming-to-America tale, a hungry but spiceaverse German tourist wandered into a New York taco joint and inexplicably helped himself to hefty portions of salsa. As he soon learned, salsa packs a bigger punch than the sauerkraut that might have typically topped his lunch back home. According to his complaint, filed in federal court, the salsa caused him severe GI distress and mouth sores that lasted for days because of its spiciness. He brought claims for negligence, gross negligence, and a violation of Section 349 of New York’s General Business Law (GBL) for failure to warn that spicy salsa is, well, spicy. In the end, his lawsuit had less fire than his lunch. According to the court (and confirmed by a poll of self-identified salsa connoisseurs here at the Digest), “when it comes to salsa, the spice is often the point.” The court found the plaintiff produced no evidence showing the green salsa was abnormally spicy compared to other salsas or Mexican food. Because the restaurant served salsa that did not exceed the bounds of normal spiciness, the plaintiff could not establish the elements of his negligence and gross negligence claims. The court next concluded that the GBL claim failed because the plaintiff could have obtained information about the spice level by simply asking an employee—or, the court noted helpfully, by Googling “Mexican food” or “salsa.” A shocking concept, we know. Sometimes, it seems, the simplest consumer protection is a quick internet search.
6 New Complaints Still Surfing the Citric Acid Wave Food brands are no strangers to suits over citric acid. For years, plaintiffs have challenged “no artificial” or “no preservative” representations on products that contain citric acid. For as long as these lawsuits have filled court dockets, we’ve filled our Digest pages covering them, no matter how many puns and jokes we’ve had to recycle. And while we’ve seen a somewhat steady stream of late, we observed a notable uptick this spring. True to form, Digest darling Spencer Sheehan was responsible for most of the filings (someone give his printer a raise and inform it of its OSHA rights!), but other law firms are hot on his heels in the race to wear the... Citric Acid Crown? Tart Tiara? (For all of their invocations of Aspergillus niger, maybe Black Mold Beanie might fit best!) Combined, these lawsuits accounted for over a quarter of the new food and beverage lawsuits we tracked in March and April—far too many to call out here. Like New York’s hottest clubs, these lawsuits have everything. Limoncello-flavored vegetable oil spread. Fruit spread. Cream cheese... spread. But the spreads aren’t getting all the attention. Plaintiffs have also sued over vegetable straws and puffs. Drink mixes. Cheese tortellini. Even that old Halloween favorite, apple cider vinegar gummies (...yum?). While these lawsuits seem to hit every corner of the food pyramid, they all largely draw on the same old playbook— citric acid allegedly is either an artificial flavoring agent or an artificial preservative, and products containing citric acid cannot truthfully advertise themselves as having “no artificial” flavors, ingredients, or preservatives. One thing is clear: Plaintiffs have not soured on these lawsuits, which are unlikely to die down anytime soon. Only the Best for Baby McCanless v. Eleeo Brands, No. 2:26-cv-03489 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2026). A California plaintiff alleges that a baby-care brand’s products—from bottle and dish soaps to baby laundry detergent and pacifier wipes—are marketed to parents who want safe products for their little ones by misleadingly representing that the products are“powered by plants,”“Baby Friendly,” “Hypoallergenic,” and have “No Harsh Chemicals,” implying naturalness and environmental friendliness. This so-called “greenwashing,” which the plaintiff contends violates the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, allegedly gives the false impression that the products are natural when they actually contain a range of synthetic and industrially processed ingredients, including “manufactured citric acid” and synthetic preservatives—not exactly the garden-fresh formulations parents had in mind. The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class, a California class, and a California consumer subclass for alleged violations rooted in California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law, as well as for breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment. She seeks declaratory, equitable, and/ or injunctive relief—and hopes to clean up some green through damages, restitution, disgorgement, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
7 New Complaints Supercharging False Labeling Complaint with Products Theories? Eichhorn v. MNG 2005 Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01395 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2026). Retail beverages promising “focus,” “mood elevation,” and an “energy boost” are nothing new. But a new class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges that some of those promises come with a stronger kick. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, challenges the marketing and labeling of canned sodas, teas, and seltzers sold at retail stores containing the substance kratom. According to the complaint, the defendant markets these beverages as safe, healthy, and energizing—going so far as to position them as exercise supplements—while allegedly failing to adequately warn consumers of the health risks associated with kratom and 7-hydroxymitragynine (“7-OH”), a potent psychoactive compound disclosed only in minuscule print without indication of its dangers. While kratom itself occurs naturally in small amounts, the plaintiff alleges that the beverages contain significantly elevated levels of 7-OH—purportedly up to 13 times stronger than morphine in its effect on opioid receptors— without meaningful disclosure on the product labels. As a result, the plaintiff’s own use allegedly escalated from occasional consumption to daily dependence, increased tolerance, and debilitating withdrawal symptoms. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligent failure to warn, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of implied and express warranties, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks to represent Pennsylvania and New Jersey classes of consumers who purchased the beverages within the relevant limitations periods. Consumer Alleges a Bone to Pick with Dog Food Trott v. The Farmer’s Dog Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03410 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2026 A new class action has taken aim at a subscription-based dog food company for allegedly misrepresenting its products as “complete,” “balanced,” and “healthy,” among other claims. The plaintiff, a dog owner from New Hampshire, alleges she was led astray by marketing claims on the company’s website and that the company’s intake questionnaire—in which she input various information about her pup—falsely represented that the foods would benefit her dog’s health. In reality, the plaintiff claims, the website buried the fact that the foods contained high amounts of added fat that could lead to health complications for her four-legged friend. Key to the plaintiff’s allegations: The company allegedly did not display full nutrition information until late in the registration process, and fat content was improperly provided on an“as fed”basis rather than a“dry matter”basis—the latter of which the plaintiff alleges gives a more accurate picture of fat content. The plaintiff alleges breach of warranty, fraud, and violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act. It remains to be seen which party will emerge as the top dog.
8 New Complaints Not Quite Cultured Enough? Vignogna v. Dollar General Corp., No. 2026-51711 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 29, 2026). A New York plaintiff is twisting up trouble for a discount retailer, alleging its “Yogurt Covered Pretzels” are more sugar rush than cultured snack. According to the complaint, the product’s coating—marketed as yogurt—actually consists primarily of sugar and palm oil, with only a de minimis amount of yogurt tucked into the ingredient list behind artificial coloring. According to the complaint, reasonable consumers expect a yogurt-based coating to contain meaningful amounts of yogurt, not what the plaintiff calls a “confectionery” substitute dressed up to look the part. The complaint brings the usual New York consumer protection claims, alleging a price premium tied to yogurt’s perceived nutritional and economic value. It also suggests a more “truthful” name might be something closer to “yogurt-flavored” pretzels, rather than the real thing. This lawsuit—filed by none other than Spencer Sheehan—is one of at least eight nearly identical filings in the past two months targeting “yogurt-covered” products with allegedly less-than-yogurt-forward formulations, which themselves pile onto the larger trend of lawsuits targeting yogurtcoated foods. Whether these claims stick—or get coated in dismissal—remains to be seen. But for now, Sheehan has made clear that when it comes to yogurt labeling, he’s not willing to let things culture quietly. Consumers Claim Stevia Fails to Leave a Sweet Impression Rodriguez v. Cove Drinks, No. 2:26-cv-02412 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026). Plaintiffs are returning to the sweet well on this one. A class action out of California alleges that a company’s “no artificial sweeteners” claim for its prebiotic soda products is false or misleading because the beverages are formulated using stevia extract or erythritol, which the complaint characterizes as “artificial sweetener ingredients used in food and beverage products.” The plaintiff supports this position by citing the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), asserting that it “defines stevia sweeteners as high-purity chemical isolates, not the natural leaf.” The complaint further describes the purported “multistep industrial process” that is used to produce the extract, alleging that it “chemically and structurally transform[s] the plant material into a product that does not exist in the natural leaf” and “bears no resemblance to the natural leaf.” The plaintiff advances similar allegations against erythritol, describing it as “a chemically manufactured sweetener ingredient.” Based on these assertions, the plaintiff brings claims on behalf of California and nationwide classes of consumers for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, as well as for breach of express warranty.
9 New Complaints Foil Me Once … Cazaldo v. Handi-Foil Corp., No. 6:26-cv-06442 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2026). A resident of Rochester, New York, has filed a class action against a disposable aluminum cookware company, alleging it falsely markets its foil pans and containers as “Made in the USA.”According to the complaint, the products are composed of foreign-derived aluminum and bauxite. The plaintiff proudly references a recent decision from the Eastern District of New York—Osdoby v. Handi-Foil Corp.— which raised the same claims and allegations against the same defendant. But here’s the crumple in the foil: that decision granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Not exactly the precedent you’d want to wave around like a flag—American or otherwise. The plaintiff asserts he was misled into believing the products were made in the United States through prominent use of the American flag and statements like “Made in the USA” on the packaging. He contends he paid a price premium that the company could not have charged without those representations. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New York consumers and raises two claims under New York’s General Business Law. Whether this suit fares better than its predecessor remains to be seen—but for now, the plaintiff appears to be recycling more than just aluminum. More Trash Talk Involving “Recyclable” Claims Alvarez v. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc., No. D-202-CV-2026-03165 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Apr. 1, 2026). Dixon v. Keurig Dr Pepper, No. 3:26-cv-02172 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2026). Sulli v. Keurig Dr Pepper, No. 6:26-cv-06420 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2026). A trio of complaints have jumped into the coffee-pod fray and recycle the same language challenging the marketing of single-serve coffee pods made from “polypropylene #5 plastic” as recyclable. The plaintiffs allege that, in practice, the majority of consumers are unable to recycle these pods “due to their small size, irregular shape, multimaterial construction, frequent contamination issues, and unfavorable economic factors.” Despite acknowledging that the packaging and related marketing materials include qualifying language—“such as instructions to ‘check locally’ and statements that the pods are ‘not recycled in many communities’”—the plaintiffs contend that these disclosures are insufficient. Specifically, they allege that “consumers will rarely notice the asterisk accompanying the recyclability claim or even be able to read the fine-print,” making these instructions insufficient where recyclability of a product is limited. In support of this proposition, the complaints cite to the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides’“[advice] that vague or general qualifications may be insufficient where recycling availability is limited.” The complaints allege that the plaintiffs relied on the recyclable claims in purchasing the pods and would not have purchased the pods or would have paid less for the pods had they known that they “could not be recycled.”
10 New Complaints Coffee Provides Purported Grounds for Disappointment Smith v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 2:26-cv-04335 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026). Caffeine-conscious consumers have filed a class action against a popular grocery chain, alleging that its French Roast Low Acid Whole Bean Coffee product is deceptively marketed as a fully caffeinated, “low acid” coffee. According to the complaint, product testing shows that the brew contains approximately half the caffeine found in regular coffee blends and is not meaningfully lower in acid than typical dark roast coffees—effectively making it “half-caf” coffee masquerading as the real deal. The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of consumers in California, New York, and Illinois, and bring claims for violations of state consumer protection laws as well as breach of express warranty. As longtime readers of the Digest know, coffee labeling claims have been percolating in the courts for years—from “cups per canister” theories to venti-versus-grande caffeine disputes. This suit blends those approaches, adding a new shot of “low acid” skepticism to the mix. Just goes to show you that coffee stimulates creativity in many ways. Lawsuit Tests “Limitless” Supplements’ Allegedly Limited Naturalness Quinn v. Limitless X Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00794 (D. Or. Apr. 22, 2026). A class action filed in the District of Oregon alleges that a supplement company’s nootropic brain pill is less Limitless and more limitless liability. The plaintiffs challenge the marketing of NZT-48, a nootropic sold as a “natural” dietary supplement for memory and focus. According to the complaint, the defendants promoted NZT-48 as safe, effective, and “scientifically proven”—claiming it could eliminate“brain fog”and support mood and neurotransmitter health—while allegedly concealing that the product contains pharmaceutical-grade levodopa and synthetic or semisynthetic ingredients such as caffeine HCl, huperzine A, and rauwolcine. The plaintiffs contend these ingredients render the product inconsistent with its “all-natural” and “no synthetic junk” positioning. The complaint also asserts that NZT-48 is an unapproved new drug—misbranded and adulterated under federal and Florida law—because it allegedly contains pharmaceuticalgrade L-DOPA and is marketed with drug-like claims without adequate warnings. The plaintiffs further challenge the defendants’ “Made in USA” representations, alleging one or more ingredients were sourced or processed abroad. They seek to represent a nationwide class and Oregon and Florida subclasses, bringing statutory consumer-protection, warranty, and unjust-enrichment claims. Whether these allegations have any brain power remains to be seen. Matcha Ado About Nothing? Morris v. MatchaBar Inc., No. 3:26-cv-02161 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026). A class action in California federal court alleges that a matcha brand falsely and deceptively labeled its matcha powder as “Ceremonial Grade” when the products did not meet the grade or quality necessary to earn that distinction. The plaintiffs allege that reasonable consumers understand ceremonial grade to mean that the matcha is “fit for use in a Japanese tea ceremony”—i.e., the crème de la crème of green tea powder. But the plaintiff cites “independent testing”—that vague and ubiquitous talisman plaintiffs love to invoke—to allege that the product is in fact lower quality than true ceremonial grade matcha. The complaint also details the products’ bitterness and astringency and its
11 New Complaints lack of the vivid green color expected of matcha used for traditional Japanese matcha preparation. The complaint brings claims under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as for breach of express warranty and intentional misrepresentation. Honey Still a Hot Target Speranza v. Continental Mills Inc., No. 606315/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026). One plaintiff is returning to the hive of lawsuits challenging honey representations. (We have previously covered similar lawsuits over health bars, graham crackers, cereal, and medications.) In this latest lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges a lot of crunch, but not much honey, in a “Honey Crunch” wheat germ product. The buzz? She understood honey to be a healthier sweetener than other refined sugars and paid a price premium for the supposedly honey-sweetened grain. But upon reading the ingredient list on the back of the jar, she discovered that honey was actually fourth in a list of sweeteners (in order of appearance: sugar syrup, corn syrup, molasses, and honey). The complaint alleges that the sweeteners used in larger quantities than honey are less healthy and more processed. The plaintiff accuses the product of being misbranded and alleges violations of the New York General Business Law for deceptive trade practices. Heaping Serving Allegations Against Creamer Sassano v. Target Corp., No. 2:26-cv-02448 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2026). A plaintiff has accused a major retailer of brewing up trouble by deceptively labeling the serving size and servings per container on its store-brand coffee creamer powder. The product’s nutrition facts panel declared “about 500 servings” based on a serving size of“1 tsp. (2g).”Not so, says the plaintiff, who cites independent lab results allegedly revealing that each teaspoon contained more than 2g (between 2.3 and 2.5g), meaning consumers got substantially fewer servings per container—about 433, or at least 13.31% fewer— than the 500 declared on the label. For our arithmetically challenged readers (and contributors—who are we kidding), that’s 67 phantom scoops. The plaintiff has no qualms with lacking in originality— the complaint proudly cites “almost identical” allegations brought against other coffee creamer producers, including those brought by the same plaintiff’s counsel four years ago. The lawsuit raises allegations of false advertising and deceptive advertising under New York’s General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and misbranding under the New York Agriculture & Markets Law.
12 Petits Fours Presentations Alan Pryor will speak on the “Navigating Key Regulatory Agencies for the Food Industry: Comprehending the Jurisdiction, Function, Organization, and Interplay of the FDA, USDA, FTC, EPA, and State and Local Health Agencies” panel at the ACI Food Law Bootcamp on July 22. Publications & Media Kristi Boswell, Sam Jockel, and Matthew Pezzella wrote the advisory “USDA Finalizes SNAP Rule Requiring Retailers to Carry More ‘Real’ Food.” (May 19) Sam Jockel, Elise Bowen, Ryan D’Souza, and Andrea Galvez wrote the advisory “Packaging EPR Reports Due May 31: What Producers Need to Do Now.” (May 6) Angela Spivey, Sam Jockel, Ben James, and Nicole Yapp wrote the advisory “Out with the Old? FDA Pushes to Modernize Dietary Supplement Regulation.” (April 14)
13 Contributing Authors Amanda Newton Wellen +1 404 881 4809 amanda.wellen@alston.com Nicole Yapp +1 202 239 3056 nicole.yapp@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 Robert Hawes +1 202 239 3015 robert.hawes@alston.com Benjamin James +1 202 239 3482 benjamin.james@alston.com Carolyn Egervary +1 212 905 9365 carolyn.egervary@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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTc0OTA5