Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—E.D. Cal.: Hamburger Helper did not misrepresent the amount of cheese in the product, (Jul 25, 2025)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A reasonable consumer would understand that a box of macaroni with a seasoning packet that can be constituted into a cheesy meal is not composed primarily of real cheese.

The federal district court in Sacramento, California has dismissed a suit alleging that Eagle Family Foods Group, LLC misrepresented the ingredients in its Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper products. A consumer alleged that the Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper packaging implied that cheese was a characterizing ingredient in each product when, in reality, the products contained less than 2% cheese in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The court concluded that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the product packaging. Also, there was no express statement or similar promise that the products were made with more than a de minimis amount of real cheese (Daniels v. Eagle Family Foods Group, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00616-SCR (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2025)).

Eagle Family Foods manufactures, labels, markets, and sells Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper. The front of the Hamburger Helper Cheeseburger Macaroni package describes the product as a “pasta & cheese sauce mix with other natural flavors.” The front of the box also states “Made with Real Cheese” and “creamy & cheesy sauce.” The product ingredient list on the back of the box states that the product contains 2% or less of “cheddar cheese.” The consumer argued that the idea that the products contain real cheese—as captured by the front packaging as a whole and the “made with real cheese claim” in particular—is what gives the products more value than a generic imitator.

Standing. At the outset, the court dismissed Eagle Family Food’s argument that the consumer lacked standing. Eagle Family Foods argued that the consumer lacked individual standing for injunctive relief because there was no showing of a real or immediate threat to the consumer. However, the court did not need to decide whether the consumer had standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief because—at a minimum—the consumer had standing to pursue damages (and possibly the equitable relief of disgorgement) based on past economic harm.

False labeling claims. The court dismissed the UCL and CLRA claims without leave to amend because no reasonable consumer would be misled by the product labeling. The reasonable consumer standard requires a probability that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled. There was no evidence that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled. The front labels state that the products are made with real cheese, which was true. Reasonable consumers would understand that the boxed product contains dried macaroni and a seasoning packet, and that when cooked it then contains macaroni, meat, and a cheesy sauce. A reasonable consumer would be familiar with the fact that such a product is not composed primarily of real cheese. Further, the label did not unambiguously oversell the amount or proportion of real cheese. The back of the box makes clear that the product contains 2% or less of cheese.

Warranty claim. The breach of express warranty claim was dismissed because Eagle Family Foods made no express promise that its products contained more than a de minimis amount of real cheese, according to the court. Express warranties are created by (1) any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain, and (2) any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain. The product labels at issue stated “made with real cheese.” This was a true statement as the products are made with cheese—it is just 2% or less real cheese. The consumer could not impose her assumption that the products contained more cheese.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-00616-SCR.

Judge: Riordan, S.

Attorneys: Craig Wallace Straub (Crosner Legal PC) for Keyonna Daniels. Catherine A. Miller, Phv (Akerman LLP) for Eagle Family Foods Group LLC d/b/a Eagle Foods.

Companies: Eagle Family Foods Group LLC d/b/a Eagle Foods

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews FoodStandardsNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews