Trusted Food Industry Defenders
FOR 35+ YEARS

On September 19, 2025, a national big-box retailer based on the east coast was threatened with a class action on the ground that its Keto Certified products contained ingredients that precluded their being labeled “Keto.” The Food Lawyers® were retained to defend the national retailer. We investigated the matter and determined that Plaintiff’s counsel did not understand the technical legal difference between unhydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and fully hydrogenated soybean oil. The Food Lawyers explained the legal difference in these ingredients to plaintiff’s counsel and instructed him that the retailer’s use of hydrogenated soybean oil did not preclude Keto Certified labeling. Plaintiff abandoned its case without the payment of any settlement money.

Our Los Angeles client’s nationally distributed product labeling states, “No Artificial Colors or Flavors,” — — a key element in its marketing collateral. The client received a class action demand letter stating the marketing claim was false because the product contains ascorbic acid. We wrote to plaintiff’s attorney educating him that ascorbic acid is not a flavoring as a matter of federal regulation. We further pointed out that our client was using ascorbic acid as a nutrient — — a source of vitamin C — — as authorized by FDA. Plaintiff abandoned its case without the payment of any settlement money.

A Los Angeles, nationally-distributed food company, received a class action demand letter saying its most important product, was labeled “No Sugar Added,” in violation of federal law. The Food Lawyers were retained to defend the case. Federal labeling regulations are voluminous, detailed and complex. Also, one regulation will reference another that completely changes the meaning of the first one. Navigating them is not a task for the inexperienced. The Food Lawyers pointed out to plaintiff’s counsel that it didn’t understand a nuance of 21 C.F.R. § 101.60(c)(3) that made our client’s labeling proper. Plaintiff abandoned its case without the payment of any settlement money.

Our client, a California nationally distributed snack food purveyor, received a class action demand letter alleging its products were deceptively labeled and fraudulently marketed. The letter came from a plaintiff’s counsel well known to The Food Lawyers. Our firm advised the client we believed this plaintiff’s counsel was a big bluffer. He would write highly detailed, threatening letters, but ultimately, not file a lawsuit. We told the client if he had the stomach for it, we could absolutely ignore this attorney. With other adversaries, that would be a dangerous strategy. We felt with this one, not responding in any way was the correct play. The client agreed. We didn’t respond and after two more threatening letters, plaintiff’s counsel, “went quiet,” never to be heard from again. The cheapest victory in firm history.

The Food Lawyers® goal is to defeat as many class actions as possible before they become lawsuits. If a case becomes a lawsuit, knock it out as early in the case as possible. This reduces total client costs. Below are examples of this philosophy.

This class action involved a brand of bread sold throughout the United States. On February 3, 2026, the industrial bakery, located in the Midwest, was threatened with a class action on the ground that numerous of its products allegedly were falsely advertised as being, “100% whole wheat.” The Food Lawyers® were retained to defend the company and conducted a focused investigation of the facts. This determined that the class plaintiff could not have purchased the product when she claimed she did. Plaintiff was forced to abandon the class action without the payment of any settlement money.

Our San Diego client whose award-winning healthy snack is sold throughout the United States, received a class action demand letter claiming the labeling was deceptive and violated New York law. The Food Lawyers responded with a letter correcting the New York attorney on the law in his state and also pointing out that parts of his case were preempted by the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Accordingly, his case was without merit. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to our letter and was never heard from again. No settlement money was paid.

Nearly all food class actions are based on misleading labeling. But the “misleading,” aspect is not limited to words on the label. It can also be a misleading product image on the package. Our San Francisco client received a class action demand letter because its nationally distributed fruit juice blend label displayed images of some, but not all, of the fruits whose juice was contained in the product. The Food Lawyers researched FDA’s interpretive policies and determined the agency allows a fruit juice label to depict less than all the fruits whose juice is in the bottle when other parts of the label make clear the product’s content. We detailed this in a letter to plaintiff who abandoned the case without the payment of any settlement money.

Client is a Vernon, California a sausage manufacturer who received a Prop 65 notice of violation with a cover letter threatening if the case were not settled (on plaintiff’s terms), there would also be a class action filed for failure to disclose the Prop 65 warning on the product label. Such “double dipping,” is permitted by the courts, allowing the plaintiff to seek two entirely different avenues of recovery for a single alleged violation. The Food Lawyers examined the matter and determined that plaintiff’s Prop 65 claim was federally preempted by the United States Federal Meat Inspection Act. This operated to defeat both the Prop 65 claim and the threatened class action. Plaintiff abandoned both cases without the payment of any settlement money.

A national retailer and its suppliers were sued in New York Federal Court over whether one of its products was fraudulently labeled. The case was originally defended by a large Los Angeles law firm that ran up huge bills and accomplished nothing. The Food Lawyers were brought in to assist. We noticed that some of the things plaintiff alleged in its complaint could be turned against the plaintiff. We made a motion to dismiss the case using plaintiff’s own language against it. The motion was granted without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed, but lost the appeal. Plaintiff, who had rejected a $250,000 settlement offer, ended up with nothing. Our client was awarded its court costs.

On August 16, 2024, Washington Post published the results of a UC Davis study reporting that 21 national retail brands advertised as “100% avocado oil” were actually “cut,” (i.e. diluted) with other cheaper oils and therefore counterfeit. Numerous lawsuits were filed throughout the U.S. The Food Lawyers were retained to defend one of the largest defendants — — a nationwide retailer based in the Midwest. Our firm conducted testing supervised by our in-house food science PhD and did targeted discovery to uncover weaknesses in plaintiff’s case. On October 23, 2025, plaintiffs were forced to abandon their case for a settlement payment of less than $750.

Other avocado oil defendants continued to fight against the various plaintiffs in court at least through the end of 2026.

The nation’s leading high protein snack company was sued in federal court over whether one of its nutrient claims was misleading. The case was being defended by a large Washington D.C. law firm that had run up colossal bills and accomplished nothing. The Food Lawyers were brought in to assist. We filed a motion to move the key issue in the case away from a jury trial and into a proceeding that would be decided by FDA scientists. Plaintiff knew its case was doomed and dismissed the entire matter in exchange for receiving a fraction of their attorneys’ fees incurred to that point.

A class action filed in Federal Court in California against a national retailer alleged its propriety brand of fruit juice was fraudulently marketed because it was labeled “100% juice,” while being fortified with ascorbic acid. The complaint alleged the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000. The Food Lawyers were retained to defend the case and filed a motion to dismiss on numerous grounds. The plaintiff settled the case for $15,000 (an amount less than their costs) before the motion could be heard.

Our client, a San Francisco, nationally-distributed food company, received a Prop 65 notice. Our test results showed no violation. We subpoenaed plaintiff’s test results that showed serious violation. Laboratory reports include the number of the scientific methodology used to conduct the testing — — something like 999.10 or 974.27; there are others. One of The Food Lawyers’ food science PhD’s looked at the test report and told us something was wrong with the testing. His 40 years of food law experience told him at a glance there was a problem. He researched the method and found it was one used for testing cosmetics, not food. All of plaintiff’s test results were invalidated. Plaintiff gave up the entire matter without the payment of any settlement money.

Our client, a Los Angeles health food company, received a Prop 65 notice alleging lead in two of its most important products. The client’s greatest concern was whether it would have to put Prop 65 warnings on the products after the litigation was concluded. Two of The Food Lawyers’ food science PhD’s teamed up with the client’s QA team to test the products’ ingredients. For one of the products, the lead was traced to an ingredient extruder that had lead in its metal composition. The extruder was replaced with stainless steel and this solved the warning issue for that product. The other product was flavored with cinnamon. The testing of cinnamon disclosed that one of the two cinnamon suppliers had high incidences of lead in the product and the other had essentially none. Purchasing was shifted to the better supplier and the second product, too, would need no Prop 65 warning. 100% Prop 65 success for the client.

Our client, a Scottish company that imports canned meat into the U.S., received a Prop 65 notice. An obscure legal point is that federal law preempts Prop 65 under certain circumstances. The Scottish company’s products is one of those situations. We informed plaintiff they had no case. After making some threats, plaintiff abandoned the matter without the payment of any settlement money. A Prop 65 case was defeated with a one-page letter.

Our client, a Los Angeles, nationally-distributed food company, received a Prop 65 notice. Our client’s largest customer, a national retailer, said it would immediately remove all product from the shelf, destroy it, get reimbursement from our client, and stop selling the product. The Food Lawyers provided proof of certain practices by this particular plaintiff (who we’d previously opposed) that would result in the goods to be sold without a Prop 65 warning until 90 days after the case was settled. Our client’s customer agreed with the analysis and kept the product on the retail shelf without a Prop 65 warning. National distribution was saved.

Plaintiff, who had filed hundreds of Prop 65 actions, filed one against our international client based on test results showing a violation. Our test results showed no violation. Something wasn’t right. We forced plaintiff in court (they fought us on it) to give us all their test results in the case — — not just the ones they used to file their action. It was revealed they had numerous results showing no violation and the average of all their results showed no violation. 100% of our test results showed no violation. Plaintiff’s case was now not even on life support, it was dead.

Client is a sausage manufacturer who received a Prop 65 notice of violation with a cover letter threatening if the case were not settled (on plaintiff’s terms) there would also be a class action filed for failure to disclose the Prop 65 filing on the product label. Such “double dipping,” is permitted by the courts, allowing the plaintiff to seek two entirely different avenues of recovery for a single alleged violation. The Food Lawyers examined the matter and determined that plaintiff’s Prop 65 claim was federally preempted by the United States Federal Meat Inspection Act. This operated to defeat both the Prop 65 claim and the threatened class action. Plaintiff abandoned both cases without the payment of any settlement money.