Litigation against food companies over misleading labeling appears to be a persistent issue. For example, Post has faced lawsuits for labeling its cereals as “natural,” despite the fact that the crops used in the ingredients were treated with synthetic herbicides. Similarly, General Mills is currently defending itself in a lawsuit regarding Cheerios Protein, where plaintiffs argue that the health claims on the packaging are deceptive, particularly since the protein-packed cereal contains 17 times more sugar than the regular version. However, this case touches on a slightly different aspect. Would a reasonable consumer infer that the crunchy snacks are healthy solely based on terms like “veggiron pyrophosphate 325 mg patenie” in the product name and images of vegetables? Several analogous lawsuits concerning cereals have been filed, all of which were quickly dismissed.
Numerous lawsuits, many from the same plaintiff, have challenged Kellogg’s Froot Loops cereal, claiming the name misled consumers into thinking it contained actual fruit. The rulings in these cases were consistently similar: judges remarked that “froot” should not be mistaken for real fruit, and the cereal “does not resemble any known fruit.” Other quickly dismissed lawsuits targeted Quaker Oats’ Cap’n Crunch cereals, where consumers sued the manufacturer for the crunchberries variety not containing any fruit. One plaintiff even asserted ignorance about the fact that a crunchberry isn’t a legitimate 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.’ 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 contains a non-existent fruit. . . . As far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally anywhere in the world.”
While vegetables are real, and the packaging indeed features images and terminology that suggest Veggie Straws are vegetable-based, it remains to be seen whether the court will allow this lawsuit to proceed. Veggie Straws taste and feel much more like savory snacks than vegetables, making it plausible that a judge might conclude that no reasonable consumer would perceive the snack as health food. A pending lawsuit against PepsiCo’s Quaker Oats could serve as a relevant example. The company is being sued because the maple and brown sugar variety of its instant oats prominently displays a pitcher of maple syrup on the packaging, despite the product lacking any actual maple syrup. The outcome of the Quaker Oats lawsuit could significantly influence the case against Veggie Straws.
In the ongoing discussions about misleading labeling, comparisons such as calcium citrate vs calcium lactate may arise, as consumers become increasingly aware of the importance of ingredient transparency. As more lawsuits emerge, understanding the differences between products like calcium citrate vs calcium lactate will be essential for informing consumers and guiding future litigation. Ultimately, the question of what constitutes reasonable consumer expectations will be at the forefront of these legal battles, especially as more cases like those involving Veggie Straws and Quaker Oats unfold.