9 New Complaints The plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in New York consumer protection law, and the plaintiffs seek to certify classes of New York consumers. While their arguments are not the most refined, the plaintiffs hope to recover actual damages and attorneys’ fees. Time will tell whether the plaintiffs will continue to mill these sorts of lawsuits before the defendants expose them as less wheat than chaff. Once Bitten, Twice Baked (or However That Saying Goes) Berkowitz v. Cooper Street Cookies LLC, No. CIVVS2600876 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 2, 2026). A cookie manufacturer faces a class action in California over its representations that its “twice baked” cookies contain no artificial ingredients. The plaintiff alleges that despite these representations, the product contains sodium acid pyrophosphate and monocalcium phosphate, which the complaint characterizes as synthetic additives. According to the plaintiff, reasonable consumers understand “no artificial” claims to mean that ingredients are derived from natural sources using minimal processing, rather than industrial chemical synthesis. The plaintiff alleges that she would not have purchased the cookies had she known about the purportedly synthetic additives, and she asserts claims for violation of California consumer protection laws and for breach of warranty. Single Serve and Single Use? Davin v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, No. 4:26-cv-10007 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2026). Duke v. Philz Coffee, No. 26CV166705 (Cal. Super. Ct. Jan. 26, 2026). Disputes are brewing in Florida federal and California state courts. Two groups of plaintiffs allege that single-serve coffee pods are not recyclable, despite how they are marketed. The plaintiffs argue that consumers have been misled by the word recyclable, the “chasing arrows” symbol, and other “greenwashing” elements, when most consumers cannot recycle the pods due to their size, material, and potential contamination. The plaintiffs allege that they were injured because they purchased (or purchased at a premium) these products believing that they were recyclable, causing them to shell out more green than they received. Will these lawsuits survive, or are they destined for the junkyard? Serving-Size Lawsuits Mount Against Supplement Manufacturers Sabath v. Life Seasons Inc. No. 502257/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan 20, 2026). Vickers v. Basic Sportswear Corp., No. 603932/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 10, 2026). Coleman v. Quten Research Institute LLC, No. 151359/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 1, 2026). Elkind v. RB Health (US) LLC, No. 600523/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 8, 2026). We previously reported on a class action complaint filed late last year that accused a nutritional gummy manufacturer of misrepresenting how many gummies it took to obtain the advertised nutritional value. Now, more plaintiffs are serving up similar allegations, accusing other supplement manufacturers of advertising serving-based benefits that can only be realized by consuming multiple gummies or capsules. In the latest complaints, the plaintiffs similarly claim that if they had known how many products they actually had to ingest to obtain the advertised nutritional value, they would have paid less for the products.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI4MjIwNg==