Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—N.D. Ill.: Mondelēz defeats false-advertising claims over ‘climate neutral’ snack-bar label, (Oct 31, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A federal judge in Illinois dismissed a consumer’s suit alleging that Mondelēz International misled buyers with its “climate neutral certified” label, finding the statement was factually true because the product had indeed been certified by a third-party organization.

A consumer’s challenge to the “climate neutral certified” labeling on Mondelēz International’s CLIF Zbar products failed after the federal court in Chicago determined that the statement accurately described third-party certification and was not misleading to reasonable consumers. The court held that the company’s representation was literally true and that no plausible allegation showed the certification itself was false or that Mondelēz misrepresented its source (Salguero v. Mondelez International, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025)).

Background. The case involved snack bars sold under the CLIF Kid brand and labeled “climate neutral certified.” The consumer, a California resident, claimed the label suggested the products caused no pollution and asserted violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, along with breach of express warranty and unjust-enrichment claims. She sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class.

Standing limited to economic injury. The court found that the consumer adequately alleged an economic injury by paying a price premium for a product she believed was environmentally neutral. That was sufficient for Article III standing to pursue damages. However, the court ruled she lacked standing for injunctive relief because, once aware of the alleged misrepresentation, she faced no “real and immediate” threat of future harm. Her knowledge that Mondelēz products do not lack a net climate effect eliminated any continuing injury necessary for prospective relief.

The court explained that federal jurisdiction under Article III requires a continuing case or controversy for each remedy sought. Because the consumer was now aware of the allegedly misleading statement, any risk of being deceived again was speculative. The court also noted that although state courts may allow injunctive claims under broader consumer-protection policies, federal courts remain bound by constitutional limits on standing.

Reasonable-consumer theory rejected. Turning to the merits, the court held that the packaging’s “climate neutral certified” claim was not deceptive as a matter of law. The label indicated only that the product had been certified by the Change Climate Project, a third-party organization requiring companies to measure emissions, create reduction plans, and offset remaining emissions. The consumer did not allege that Mondelēz failed to meet those standards or that the certification was fabricated.

The court distinguished between a representation that a product “is climate neutral” and one stating it “is climate neutral certified,” describing the difference as dispositive. Because the certification was genuine, Mondelēz’s statement could not be considered false or misleading. The court emphasized that accurately identifying a legitimate third-party certification does not constitute a deceptive or unlawful practice under California’s consumer-protection laws when the certification itself is valid.

The court also rejected the argument that the label’s typography or placement rendered it deceptive. Although the term “certified” appeared in smaller type, it remained legible, and consumers are expected to apply common sense when reading product packaging. The court noted that reasonable consumers cannot disregard obvious qualifying language, emphasizing that courts assess packaging as a whole rather than isolating a single word or phrase. The “climate neutral certified” phrase appeared in a discrete logo positioned apart from the primary product messaging, which indicated to consumers that it was an external certification rather than an internal claim.

The court also noted that, while environmental marketing can present factual questions inappropriate for dismissal at the pleading stage, dismissal is proper when the packaging contains an objectively truthful and verifiable representation, as here. While environmental marketing claims can sometimes raise factual disputes inappropriate for dismissal, a complaint cannot survive when the challenged representation is objectively true and verifiable. Because the certification originated from an independent organization that measures and offsets emissions under established standards, the court found no plausible basis for inferring deception.

Warranty and unjust-enrichment claims. The breach-of-warranty claim was dismissed for the same reason: Mondelēz’s packaging truthfully conveyed that the bars were “climate neutral certified.” A statement that is literally true cannot form the basis of an express-warranty or misrepresentation claim. The court further ruled that even if California law governed unjust enrichment, the outcome would be unchanged because the defendant had not been unjustly enriched by a truthful statement.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-02139.

Judge: Shah, M.

Attorneys: Rachel K. Tack (Zimmerman Reed LLP) for Cynthia Salguero. Jason Patrick Stiehl (Crowell & Moring LLP) for Mondelez International, Inc.

Companies: Mondelez International, Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews LabelingNews IllinoisNews