Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`Christopher T. Aumais (Cal. Bar No. 249901)
`2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`Tel: (310) 274-4663
`cta@ggallp.com
`
`
`THE KEETON FIRM LLC
`Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.*
`100 S Commons, Ste 102
`Pittsburgh PA 15212
`Tel: (888) 412-5291
`stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
`
`*Pro hac vice forthcoming
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`Marcia Campbell, individually, and on
`behalf of those similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`Arizona Beverages USA LLC and
`Hornell Brewing Co., Inc.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 45
`
`Plaintiff Marcia Campbell brings this action on behalf of herself and all others
`
`similarly situated against Defendants Arizona Beverages USA LLC and Hornell
`
`
`
`Brewing Co., Inc. (collectively “Arizona” or “Defendants”). Plaintiff makes the
`
`following allegations pursuant to the investigation of counsel and based upon
`
`information and belief, except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to herself,
`
`which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This case arises from Defendants’ deceptive and misleading practices
`
`with respect to its marketing and sale of their fruit snack products (the “Products”).1
`
`2.
`
`Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute the Products using a
`
`marketing and advertising campaign focused on claims that appeal to health-
`
`conscious consumers – specifically the importance of real fruit and its presence in the
`
`
`Products.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants engage in a deceptive marketing campaign to convince
`
`consumers that the Products contain significant amounts of the actual fruits shown
`
`in the marketing2 and on the labeling3 of the Products, they are nutritious and
`
`healthful to consume, and are more healthful than similar products.
`
`
`1 At the time of this filing, the following Arizona products are included in this
`definition: Arnold Palmer Half & Half Fruit Snacks and Green Tea Fruit Snacks.
`This definition is not exhaustive, and shall include all of Defendants’ products that
`are similarly deceptively marketed.
`2 Variants of the words “marketing,” and “market” refer to all forms of advertising in
`all forms of media, including but not limited to print advertisements, television, and
`radio commercials, Products’ labels, viral marketing, incentives, and websites.
`3 The term “labeling” encompasses other descriptive terms, including various forms of
`the words: labels, labeling, packages, and packaging.
`
`
`
`– 1 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 45
`
`4.
`
`Notably, the Products’ name – “Fruit Snacks” – combined with
`
`packaging that displays images of fresh fruit and prominently states, “MADE WITH
`
`
`
`REAL FRUIT” and “FRUIT IS OUR FIRST INGREDIENT” establishes this belief
`
`with reasonable consumers:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 2 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 45
`
`5.
`
`The deception lies in the fact that the Products are devoid of real fruit.
`
`Rather than containing real fruit, the Products are packed with sugar. Defendants’
`
`
`
`Products contain sugar levels comparable to candy and none of the vibrantly depicted
`
`fruits.
`
`6.
`
`Thus, although Defendants market the Products as containing real fruit
`
`while being healthful and nutritious, they are devoid of the health benefits
`
`reasonable consumers associate with consuming real fruit.
`
`7.
`
`Reasonable consumers purchased the Products believing, among other
`
`things, that they were accurately represented. Specifically, reasonable consumers
`
`believed that the Products were healthful and contained a significant amount of real
`
`fruit. Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Products if they had
`
`known about the misrepresentations and omissions, or would have purchased them
`
`on different terms.
`
`
`Defendants violated the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members because
`
`8.
`
`the Products are not the fruit-packed snack that Defendants’ marketing and labeling
`
`represents.
`
`9.
`
`Relying on Defendants’ representations, consumers that seek healthier
`
`alternatives than mere candy only later realize that their purchase of Defendants’
`
`Products was a fruitless endeavor.
`
`10. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those similarly
`
`situated and seek to represent a National Class and a California Class. Plaintiff
`
`seeks damages, interest thereon, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, restitution,
`
`other equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits that Defendants have enjoyed
`
`from their deceptive business practices, as detailed herein. In addition, Plaintiff seeks
`
`
`
`– 3 –
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`injunctive relief to stop Defendants’ deceptive conduct in the labeling and marketing
`
`of the Products.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants
`purposefully avail themselves of the California consumer market and distribute the
`Products to many locations within this District and hundreds of retail locations
`throughout the State of California, where the Products are purchased by thousands of
`consumers every day.
`12. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction over this proposed
`class action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which, under the provisions of the Class
`
`Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the
`federal courts in any class action in which at least 100 members are in the proposed
`plaintiff class, any member of the plaintiff class is a citizen of a State different from
`any defendant, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of individual
`members of the proposed Class (as defined herein) are well in excess of $5,000,000.00
`in the aggregate, exclusive of interest and costs.
`13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Plaintiff’s
`purchases of Defendants’ Products, substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged
`improper conduct, including the dissemination of false and misleading information
`regarding the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of the Products, occurred within this
`District and the Defendants conduct business in this District.
`
`
`DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT
`14. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c-d), a substantial part of the events
`giving rise to the claims arose in Humboldt County, and this action should be
`assigned to the Eureka Division.
`
`
`
`
`– 4 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`15. Plaintiff Marcia Campbell is a citizen of California.
`
`
`
`a. Prior to her purchase, Ms. Campbell saw and relied on Defendants’
`
`marketing and labeling representing that the Products contained real
`
`fruit, in significant amounts, and included the named and depicted
`
`fruits.
`
`b. Ms. Campbell wished to purchase the fruit snacks for personal
`
`consumption. When Ms. Campbell saw Defendants’ misrepresentations
`
`prior to and at the time of purchase, she relied on Defendants’
`
`prominent representations and claims about the Products. Specifically,
`
`that it contained significant amounts of the actual fruit that Defendants
`
`emphasized in the marketing and on the labeling of the Product.
`
`c. Ms. Campbell relied on the Defendants’ representations, including but
`
`not limited to, that the Products are “MADE WITH REAL FRUIT” and
`
`“FRUIT IS OUR FIRST INGREDIENT” as well as the fruit imagery that
`
`surrounds the entire packaging.
`
`d. Ms. Campbell understood these representations to mean that real fruit
`
`was the primary ingredient in the Products. Had Ms. Campbell known
`
`the truth – that the Products did not contain any real fruit – Ms.
`
`Campbell would not have purchased the Products at a premium price. If
`
`Defendants started including real fruit as the primary ingredient, or the
`
`Products were no longer deceptively labeled, Ms. Campbell would
`
`purchase the Products again in the future. Ms. Campbell brings the
`
`
`– 5 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 45
`
`claims below seeking damages, actual and statutory, as well as
`
`injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`e. Ms. Campbell has purchased the Products on multiple occasions. Ms.
`
`Campbell’s most recent purchase of the Products occurred in November
`
`2021, when she purchased the Arizona Green Tea Fruit Snacks and
`
`Arnold Palmer Half & Half Fruit Snacks at a price of approximately
`
`$2.50 per bag from Eureka Natural Foods and Winco located in Eureka,
`
`CA.
`
`16. Defendant Arizona Beverages USA LLC is a New York company with its
`
`principal place of business in Woodbury, NY.
`
`17. Defendant Hornell Brewing, Co., Inc. is a New York corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Woodbury, NY.
`
`a. Defendant Hornell Brewing owns Defendant Arizona Beverages USA.
`
`b. The marketing and labeling for the Products that Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members relied upon in making their decisions to purchase the Products
`
`was conceived, designed, prepared and/or approved by the Defendants
`
`and was disseminated by Defendants and their agents through labeling,
`
`marketing, and advertising containing the misrepresentations from
`
`their New York headquarters.
`
`c. In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, Defendants, in
`
`connection with their subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other related
`
`entities and their employees, planned, participated in and furthered a
`
`common scheme to induce members of the public to purchase the
`
`
`
`
`Products by means of false, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent
`
`– 6 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`representations, and Defendants participated in the making of such
`
`representations in that they disseminated those misrepresentations or
`
`
`
`caused them to be disseminated.
`
`18. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add different or
`
`additional defendants, including without limitation any officer, director, employee,
`
`supplier, or distributor of Defendants who have knowingly and willfully aided,
`
`abetted, or conspired in the false and deceptive conduct alleged herein.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`A. Defendants deceive consumers by misrepresenting that the
`Products contain real fruit in significant amounts.
`
`
`19. Consumers increasingly and consciously seek out healthy foods and
`
`snacks— placing value on healthy fruit snacks that contain less added sugar.
`
`Consumers seek these types of snacks for various reasons, including perceived
`
`
`benefits of avoiding disease, and attaining health and wellness for themselves and
`
`their children and families.4
`
`20.
`
`In addition, scientific data shows that it is difficult to meet nutrient
`
`needs while staying within calorie requirements if you consume more than 10 percent
`
`of your daily calories from added sugar. Consumers seek healthier options by seeking
`
`to purchase snack products with less sugar. And scientific evidence indicates that
`
`excess sugar contributes to numerous chronic health problems such as heart disease
`
`and type 2 diabetes.5
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Fruit Snacks Sales Rise by 162% Amid COVID-19 Pandemic (April 29,
`2020) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fruit-snacks-sales-rise-by-162-
`amid-covid-19-pandemic-301049556.html.
`5 American Heart Ass’n, Understanding Childhood Obesity, available at
`http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-
`
`
`public/@wcm/@fc/documents/downloadable/ucm_428180.pdf.
`
`– 7 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 9 of 45
`
`21. As a result, consumers are willing to pay, and have paid, a premium for
`
`products that contain significant amounts of real fruit over products that do not
`
`
`
`contain significant amounts of real fruit.6
`
`22. Companies such as the Defendants capitalize on the consumer’s demand
`
`for real fruit and generate increased unit sales, revenue, and profit by making real
`
`fruit representations.
`
`23. Further, consumers rely on label representations and information in
`
`making purchasing decisions.
`
`24. Knowing this, Defendants prominently feature real fruit statements and
`
`images throughout its packaging.
`
`25. Notably, the Product’s principal display panel displays images of fresh
`
`fruit while the packaging prominently states, “MADE WITH REAL FRUIT.”
`
`
`
`
`6 Mondelez International, Fruitful Business: Fruit and Veggie Snack Trend Grows
`Stronger, https://www.letschatsnacks.com/fruitfulbusiness (“Nielsen reveals that the
`snackable fruit and vegetable category is ripe with revenue, generating sales of $16.3
`billion in the year ended May 27, 2017”).
`
`
`
`
`– 8 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 10 of 45
`
`26. The back of the Products additionally state, “MADE with REAL FRUIT”
`
`and “FRUIT IS OUR FIRST INGREDIENT.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. Additionally, the Products’ names are “Fruit Snacks.”
`
`28. This leads consumers to believe that the Products contain a significant
`
`amount of real fruit.
`
`29. Further, the representation “FRUIT IS OUR FIRST INGREDIENT” on
`
`the packaging leads reasonable consumers to believe that there are significant
`
`amounts of real fruit in the Products.
`
`30. The FDA mandates that ingredients must be presented in a descending
`
`order of predominance.
`
`31. By prominently claiming that fruit is the first ingredient – when it is
`
`not- Defendants convey to consumers that real fruit is the primary ingredient.
`
`
`
`
`– 9 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 11 of 45
`
`32. Reasonable consumers – accustomed to companies complying with FDA
`
`regulations and declaring ingredients in order of predominance – accept this
`
`
`
`representation to mean that there are significant amounts of real fruit in the Product.
`
`33. The Products lack real fruit:
`
`
`
`
`34. To offset its lack of real fruit, Defendants overcompensate by plastering
`
`real fruit imagery throughout their Products’ packaging.
`
`35. For example, the Products include realistic drawings of fruits which
`
`wrap around the entire lower level of the packaging.
`
`36. Based on the representations that appear in the marketing and on the
`
`packaging of the Products, Plaintiff reasonably believed that the Products were made
`
`with significant amounts of real fruit.
`
`37. Rather, Defendants’ Products are merely sugar filled snacks
`
`masqueraded as health-focused treats containing real fruit and nutrition.
`
`38. Taken as a whole, the words and images used on Defendants’ packaging
`
`leads consumers to believe that the Products contain real fruit in significant
`
`amounts.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 10 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 12 of 45
`
`39. Not only are consumers misled but also competing products sharing the
`
`same shelves as Defendants’ Products are placed at a competitive disadvantage.
`
`
`
`40. For example, these competing products are sold in the same stores as
`
`Defendants’ Products yet - unlike the Products - these items do not make real fruit
`
`representations:
`
`a. Alabanse® Gummi Bear candy makes no fruit references and contains
`
`similar ( actually lower) sugar levels than the Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b. HARIBO® Goldbears® candy includes images of fruit items yet no
`
`written fruit messaging and contains similar ( actually lower) sugar
`
`levels than the Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 11 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Great Value® Gummy Bears candy includes images of fruit items yet no
`
`written fruit messaging and contains lower sugar levels than the
`
`Products:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 12 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 14 of 45
`
`41.
`
`In other words, while all of the above snacks are similarly high in sugar
`
`and lack any real fruit, none of the competing products – unlike Defendants’
`
`
`
`Products’ - deceptively misrepresent that they contain real fruit.
`
`42. Defendants’ deceptions harm not only consumers but also companies
`
`that accurately represent their products by diverting attention and dollars away from
`
`competitors that are good faith market participants.
`
`B. Defendants perpetuate this deception in their advertising and
`marketing.
`
`43. Defendants’ deceptions are not limited to the packaging. They further
`
`
`the deception through targeted marketing and advertising.
`
`44. For example, the website listing for the Products emphasizes the fruit
`
`content and the health benefits of the Products:
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Additionally, its marketing campaigns perpetuate the “made with real
`
`fruit” myth when the Products do not contain any real fruit:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 13 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Instead, Defendants fail to include any real fruit.
`
`
`– 14 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 16 of 45
`
`47. The Products contain no dietary fiber, a key health-promoting
`
`component of real fruit nor any of the other health benefits of real fruit.
`
`
`
`48. Defendants target their deceptions to consumers demanding health
`
`focused products.
`
`49.
`
`Instead of receiving a healthy snack made from real fruit, each serving
`
`of the Products contains more sugar per serving than other snacks that do not target
`
`health focused consumers.
`
`50. The Products contain 15 grams of sugar in each serving which is the
`
`same amount of sugar as some popular candies:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 15 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 17 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51. The above listed numbers discuss the serving size amounts of sugar.
`
`52. The Products contain 5 servings per bag, so in total, the Products
`
`contain 75 grams of sugar in each bag.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 18 of 45
`
`53. This is more sugar than is present in a 20 ounce bottle of Coca Cola:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54. Also, the 75 grams of sugar present in the Products is more than three
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`times the recommended daily intake for women and children and two times the
`
`recommended daily intake for men by the American Heart Association.7
`
`55. Moreover, the Products contain almost the same amount of sugar that
`
`are present in two 12 oz. cans of Coca Cola:
`
`
`7 24 grams for women and children; 36 grams for men. American Heart Association,
`Added Sugars, available at https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-
`eating/eat-smart/sugar/added-sugars.
`
`
`
`
`– 17 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 19 of 45
`
`
`
`
`56. Thus, the Products contain no real fruit – and none of the health
`
`benefits associated with the consumption of real fruit – while containing dangerously
`
`high levels of sugar that are higher than many items that consumers consider
`
`unhealthy.
`
`57. Through targeted marketing and advertising, Defendants perpetuate
`
`the misrepresentation that their Products contain significant amounts of real fruit.
`
`58. The practice of deceptively marketing fruit snacks as containing
`
`substantial amounts of fruit when they do not is well-recognized, and the Center for
`
`Science in the Public Interest has been outspoken in its criticism: 8
`
`Food companies aggressively market phony fruit snacks to toddlers,
`children, and their parents, pushing them as healthy options and
`substitutes for real fruit. Unfortunately for parents and kids, phony
`fruit snacks don’t always contain the fruits advertised on the
`front of the box and never in the quantities suggested. Instead,
`companies use relatively cheap, nutritionally void, and highly
`processed pear, apple, and white grape juices, making phony
`fruit snacks much closer to gummy bears than actual fruit.
`
`
`
`8 CSPI website, Phony Fruit Snacks, available at
`http://cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/fruitfraud.html (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`– 18 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 20 of 45
`
`59. The Center for Science in the Public Interest’s infographic provides
`
`additional analysis of this problem:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`In this case, the Products’ first ingredient is not real fruit. Rather, it is
`
`“pear juice from fruit juice concentrate.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 19 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 21 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`61.
`
`In other words, the first ingredient is merely added sugar that is
`
`nutritionally void.
`
`
`
`62.
`
`In fact, the second (Glucose Syrup) and third (Sugar) ingredients are
`
`also added sugars.
`
`63. Rather than having healthful real fruit as its first ingredients,
`
`Defendants first three ingredients are added sugars.
`
`64. This is the exact scenario shown in the CSPI infographic.
`
`65.
`
`Simply, “[t]hese aren’t fruit snacks... these sugar-laden treats are ‘Phony
`
`Fruit Snacks.’"9
`
`
`66. Added sugars represent 100% of the sugars contained in the Products.
`
`67. Diets high in added sugars – from such foods as sugar-sweetened snacks
`
`like the Products – squeeze healthier foods out of the diet, thereby displacing foods
`
`that provide nutrients that reduce the risk of osteoporosis, cancer, heart disease,
`
`stroke, and other health problems.10
`
`68. Diets rich in added sugars contribute to obesity, the prevalence of which
`
`has risen dramatically in the last three decades in both youths and adults.11 Obesity,
`
`in turn, increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and other
`
`
`9 CSPI website, Phony Fruit Snacks, available at
`http://cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/fruitfraud.html.
`10 See S. Bowman, Diets of Individuals Based on Energy Intakes from Added Sugars,
`12 FAMILY ECON. NUTRITION REV. 31-8 (1999); G. Mrdjenovi & D.A. Levitsky,
`Nutritional and Energetic Consequences of Sweetened Drink Consumption in 6- to 13-
`year-old Children, 142 J. PEDIATRICS 604-10 (2003).
`11 See D.S. Ludwig, K.E. Peterson & S.L. Gortmaker, Relationship between
`Consumption of Sugar-sweetened Drinks and Childhood Obesity, 357 LANCET 505-8
`(2001); C.S. Berkey, H.R. Rockett, A.E. Field, et al., Sugar-added Beverages and
`Adolescent Weight Change, 12 OBESITY RES. 778-88 (2004); C.M Apovian, Sugar-
`sweetened Soft Drinks, Obesity, and Type 2 Diabetes, 292 J. AM. MED. ASS’N 927-34
`(2004); Ctr. for Disease Control and Prevention, Nat’l Ctr. for Health Statistics,
`Prevalence of Overweight among Children and Adolescents: United States, 1999-
`2002, available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overwght99.htm.
`
`
`
`– 20 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 22 of 45
`
`health problems.12 In people who are insulin resistant, high intakes of added sugars
`
`increase levels of blood triglycerides, which are associated with a higher risk of heart
`
`
`
`disease and diabetes.13 In addition, frequent consumption of foods rich in added
`
`sugars increases the risk of osteoporosis.14
`
`69. Defendants’ claims about the fruit content of the Products are deceptive.
`
`Although the marketing and labeling of the Products depict certain fruits, those fruits
`
`are not the predominant ingredient nor are they even present in the Products.
`
`Instead, the Products contain significant amounts of added sugars.
`
`70. As a result of their unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent advertising and
`
`marketing practices, Defendants have made millions at the expense of the public
`
`health and trust, and continue to make millions through these unfair, unlawful and
`
`fraudulent advertising and marketing practices.
`
`C. The Products are misbranded.
`
`
`71. Under FDCA section 403, a food is “misbranded” if “its labeling is false
`
`or misleading in any particular.” See 21 U.S.C. §§ 343(a).
`
`72. The amount of fruit in the Products has a material bearing on price and
`
`consumer acceptance. Moreover, Defendants’ marketing and labeling of the Product—
`
`including imagery and references of certain fruits—creates the erroneous impression
`
`
`12 U.S. Surgeon General, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., The Surgeon
`General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity (2001).
`available at www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/CalltoAction.pdf.
`13 M.J. Stampfer, R.M Krauss, J. Ma, et al., A Prospective Study of Triglyceride Level,
`Lowdensity Lipoprotein Particle Diameter, and Risk of Myocardial Infarction, 276 J.
`AM. MED. ASS’N 882-8 (1996).
`14 S.J. Whiting, A. Healey & S. Psiuk, Relationship between Carbonated and Other
`Low Nutrient Dense Beverages and Bone Mineral Content of Adolescents, 32
`NUTRITION RES. 1107-15 (2001).
`
`
`
`
`– 21 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 23 of 45
`
`that the fruit depicted in the Products’ marketing and labeling is present in an
`
`amount greater than is actually the case.
`
`73. Defendants’ Products contain no real fruit.
`
`
`
`74. Because the Defendants fail to reveal the basic nature and
`
`characterizing properties of the Products (specifically, the true fruit content),
`
`Defendants’ Products are not only sold with misleading labeling but also misbranded
`
`under Sections 403(a) of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. §§
`
`343(a), and cannot be legally manufactured, advertised, distributed, or sold in the
`
`U.S. as it is currently labeled. See 21 U.S.C. § 331.
`
`75. Moreover, California law forbids the misbranding of food in language
`
`largely identical to that found in the FDCA.
`
`76. The Products are misbranded under California’s Sherman Law, Cal.
`
`Health & Safety Code §§ 109875-111915. The Sherman Law expressly incorporates
`
`the food labeling requirements set forth in the FDCA, see Cal. Health & Safety Code §
`
`110100(a), and provides that any food is misbranded if its nutritional labeling does
`
`not conform to FDCA requirements. See id. § 110665; see also id. § 110670.
`
`77. The Sherman Law further provides that a product is misbranded if its
`
`labeling is “false or misleading.” Id. § 110660. It is a violation of the Sherman Law to
`
`advertise any misbranded food, id. § 110398; to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or
`
`offer for sale any food that is misbranded, id. § 110760; to misbrand any food, id. §
`
`110765: or to receive in commerce any food that is misbranded or deliver or proffer it
`
`for delivery, id. § 110770.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– 22 –
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-02752-RMI Document 1 Filed 05/09/22 Page 24 of 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`78. By misrepresenting the basic nature and characterizing properties of the
`
`Products, Defendants violate these federal and state regulations and mislead Plaintiff
`
`
`
`and consumers alike.
`
`D. Reasonable consumers relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations to
`their detriment.
`
`79. Defendants’ deceptive representations and omissions are material in
`
`that a reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be
`
`induced to act upon such information in making purchase decisions.
`
`80. Plaintiff and the Class Members reasonably relied to their detriment on
`
`
`Defendants’ misleading representations and omissions.
`
`81. Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and
`
`omissions are likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the
`
`general public, as they have already deceived and misled the Plaintiff and the Class
`
`
`Members.
`
`E