Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-03067 (N.D. Cal.): A federal judge has granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in this putative class action alleging violations of California consumer protection laws and federal false advertising laws based upon claims that defendant’s “100% Juice” labels

Harlam v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 1:15-cv-877 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging defendant deceptively labels its Almond Breeze Almond Milk as “All Natural,” when in fact it contains synthetic and artificial ingredients and preservatives.

Snyder v. Knudson & Sons Inc., No. 3:15cv00189 (M.D. Fla.): On behalf of a putative statewide class, plaintiff asserts

Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 3:12cv04936 (N.D. Cal.):  The Court granted final settlement approval in this putative class action alleging that Ghirardelli’s white chocolate products did not contain chocolate or white chocolate, but were instead “artificial” and “imitation.”  The terms of the approved settlement are as follows:

Defendants will pay $5.25 million into a

Riva v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 14cv0340 (N.D. Cal.): A federal judge has dismissed with prejudice this suit, one of several putative class actions filed against Pepsi alleging that Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi beverages contained 4-methylimidazole (“4-MEl”), a carcinogen found on California Proposition 65’s list of known carcinogens, which was not disclosed on the

In re Conagra Foods, No. 2:11cv05379 (C.D. Cal.): A federal judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s amended motion for class certification in this putative class action alleging claims under various states’ consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment, based on the claim that defendants label their

Jones v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-1633 (N.D. Cal.): In a putative class action raising claims under California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, and unjust enrichment, plaintiff alleged that 1) defendant’s Hunt’s tomato products are misrepresented as “100% Natural” or “Free of artificial ingredients & preservatives” when in fact they contain citric acid and/or calcium chloride; 2)

Von Slomski v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 8:13cv01757 (C.D. Cal.): The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as breach of express warranty, based on defendant’s representation that its teas are “100% Natural” when in fact they allegedly contain chemical

Monka v. Jag Specialty Foods LLC, No. 9:14cv80764 (S.D. Fla.): On behalf of a putative class of Florida consumers, plaintiff claims defendant deceptively markets certain of its breadsticks as “All Natural,” when the breadsticks allegedly contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients including soybean oil and/or corn syrup.  The complaint alleges violations of Florida’s Deceptive and

Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 5:13cv4537 (N.D. Cal.): In a putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA, the plaintiff alleged that defendant’s labels for its chocolate products 1) make misleading nutrient content claims regarding flavanols, 2) make misleading calorie claims, and 3) fail to identify certain ingredients contained in the product

Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., No. 13cv4291 (N.D. Cal.):  A court has granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment in this putative class action alleging claims under California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, and a number of common law tort claims.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s use of the