Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—N.D. Ill.: Egg seller’s ‘cage free’ claims crack under pressure, (Mar 5, 2026)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A reasonable consumer could be misled about the conditions of its chickens by Eggland Best’s “cage free” claims.

Egg purchasers stated consumer protection and false advertising claims against Eggland’s Best Inc. for misrepresenting that its eggs came from hens that were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment” despite being kept in industrial egg-laying compounds, according to the federal district court in Chicago, Illinois. The purchasers bought Eggland’s eggs in part based on the representation that Eggland’s hens were cage-free and were willing to pay premium prices based on this representation. However, Eggland hens are raised in compounds in which they have no exposure to the outside world. The court found that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by the “cage Free” claims and denied Eggland’s Best motion to dismiss claims under 13 consumer protection laws (Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, Inc. , No. 1:24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2026)).

According to the complaint, “cage free” eggs sell at prices seven percent higher than conventional eggs. Eggland sells its large Cage Free eggs for up to a twenty-five percent premium over its large conventional eggs. “Free range” eggs sell at an even higher premium of twenty-six percent. Eggland’s hens, while technically considered “cage free,” are raised in industrial “egg-laying compounds.” These compounds do not give the hens any exposure to the outside world.

Rule 9(b). The claims met the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Procedure 9(b), according to the court. Each of the purchasers alleged that they relied on a specific statement made by Eggland on its product, and that they purchased that product at a grocery store, during a specific month and year, in a specific town.

Reasonable consumers. Each of the 13 state law claims at issued had one element in common: the plaintiff must allege that the advertisement misleads a “reasonable consumer.” Eggland argued that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the statement because (1) the eggs were clearly labeled “cage free”; (2) the statement did not suggest that the eggs are “free range” or “pasture raised”; (3) the statements at issue were true and not misleading when viewed in context; and (4) in the alternative, the statement was mere puffery.

The court held that a reasonable consumer may be misled by the claim that its cage-free eggs came from hens that were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment.” Eggland cited several state laws which include indoor hens within the definition of “cage free,” including indoor hens who have no outdoor access. The consumers did not deny that the eggs met the state definitions of cage free. Rather, they argued a reasonable consumer would only take this label to mean that the hens are free from cages. The additional statement that the hens are also “free to roam” in a “natural” and “pleasant” environment would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the hens are free to roam outdoors to some extent, or at least in an environment that is pleasant and natural. At the very least, the consumer would not expect the hens to be kept in packed, metal and concrete facilities, and in unhealthy conditions. The court agreed. The consumers sufficiently alleged that a reasonable person could find the statement to be misleading, even considering the “cage free” designation, because the “cage free” designation did nothing to correct this additional representation.

Because the living conditions of hens were verifiable facts, the court held that the claims at issue were not unactionable puffery. Advertising statements are not puffery if they make objective and verifiable claims and are specific enough to induce consumer reliance. The statement that Eggland’s hens are “free to roam in a pleasant natural environment” made a a verifiable promise about the living conditions of the hens. While the statement that an environment is “pleasant” alone may amount to puffery, when combined with the promise that hens are, in fact, free to roam in a natural, pleasant environment, it is not the “vague and aspirational language that amounts to mere puffery.”

Lastly, the court rejected Eggland’s argument that the consumers failed to state claims under Nevada and New Mexico’s consumer protection statutes because the statement Plaintiffs allegedly relied on were not misleading. The court noted that evidence may reveal that Eggland’s statement, in light of the cage free label, was understood by consumers to mean that the hen could be roaming in a packed industrial facility, but it was not required to make that factual finding at this stage.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-06222.

Judge: Valderrama, F.

Attorneys: Douglas M. Werman (Werman Salas P.C.) for Tim Janecyk. Richard Fama (Cozen O'Connor) for Eggland's Best, Inc.

Companies: Eggland's Best, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews LabelingNews IllinoisNews