Skip to Content

Food and Supplement Labeling

Class actions involving food, beverage and dietary supplement products typically involve claims challenging the labeling, advertising, composition, and state and federal regulatory compliance of those products. 

Examples of claims brought by GPM targeting food products include:

  1. A product marketed as “natural,” “nothing artificial,” or “no preservatives” does not qualify for reasons such as the presence of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) or synthetic ingredients, or the product’s processing;
  2. A product explicitly labeled “healthy” includes ingredients that are not sufficiently nutritious;
  3. Representations on a product regarding its health benefits are overstated, lack support, or are offset by other factors;
  4. Representations on the package that may confuse consumers as to where the product is made, such as by stating the product is “Made in the USA” when some ingredients may come from elsewhere;
  5. Other representations on a product as potentially misleading or untrue.

Glancy Prongay & Murray’s attorneys have prosecuted false labeling cases against some of the largest food manufacturers in the world across a broad spectrum of products.  For example, Glancy Prongay & Murray sued Pepsico, the manufacturer of the Naked Juice line of beverages, alleging that the product claims of “All Natural” and “Non-GMO” were false.  The case settled for $9 million, one of the largest food labeling settlements at the time.

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials