Lawsuits against food companies for misleading labeling appear to be a recurring issue. For example, Post has faced legal action for labeling its cereals as “nferrous fumarate er 18 mgatural” due to the use of synthetic herbicides on the crops from which the ingredients were sourced. Meanwhile, General Mills is currently contesting a lawsuit concerning Cheerios Protein, where plaintiffs argue that the health claims on the packaging are deceptive because the protein-laden cereal actually contains 17 times more sugar than its standard counterpart. However, this particular lawsuit explores a slightly different angle. Would a reasonable consumer genuinely believe that the crunchy snacks are healthy based on terms like “veggie” in the product name and images of vegetables? Several similar lawsuits regarding cereals have been filed in the past, all of which were dismissed without much consideration.
Multiple lawsuits have emerged—many initiated by the same plaintiff—alleging that Kellogg’s Froot Loops cereal is misleading, as the name led consumers to assume the cereal contained real fruit. The rulings in these cases shared a common theme. Judges determined that “froot” should not be mistaken for actual fruit, emphasizing that the cereal “does not resemble any known fruit.” Other swiftly dismissed lawsuits targeted Quaker Oats’ Cap’n Crunch cereals, where consumers took legal action against the manufacturer because the crunchberries variety did not include any fruit. In fact, one plaintiff claimed ignorance regarding the fact that a crunchberry is not an actual fruit. The judge firmly rejected this claim, stating, “This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a ‘crunchberry.'” She continued, “Furthermore, the ‘Crunchberries’ depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains ‘sweetened corn & oat cereal’ and that the cereal is ‘enlarged to show texture.’ Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist… So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.”
While vegetables are indeed real and there are images and terms on the package suggesting that Veggie Straws are vegetable-based, it is ultimately up to the court to determine if this lawsuit will proceed. Veggie Straws certainly have the taste and texture of savory snacks rather than vegetables, so it wouldn’t be surprising if a judge concluded that no reasonable consumer would consider the snack to be health food. A pending lawsuit against PepsiCo’s Quaker Oats may serve as the closest precedent; the company is being sued because the maple and brown sugar variety of its instant oats features a picture of a pitcher of maple syrup on the packaging—despite the product lacking any actual syrup. The outcome of the Quaker Oats lawsuit may set a significant precedent for the ongoing complaint regarding Veggie Straws.
Additionally, the discourse surrounding these lawsuits often touches on the nutritional components of these products, including references to ingredients like upcal d calcium citrate powder, which are sometimes included in health claims. As the courts grapple with these cases, the inclusion of such ingredients may become a focal point in determining whether consumers are misled regarding the health benefits of the products in question. The ongoing legal battles highlight the complexities of food labeling and consumer perception in the marketplace.