Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—S.D. Cal : Court dismisses false advertising action involving allegedly mislabelled “healthy” snack bars., (Apr 17, 2026)

By Sara Cracau, J.D.

Court dismissed class action against snack food manufacturer for failure to state a claim for consumer deception involving labelling of snack bars containing sugar as “healthy.”

A federal district court in California has granted the motion to dismiss of a food snack manufacturer in a deceptive advertising action finding that it failed to state a claim for consumer deception. The court determined that the consumer’s alleged assumption in this case was not just unreasonable or fanciful but also implausible. Here, the alleged misrepresentations were on the same side of the packaging as the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) and, therefore, a consumer could readily see how the percentage of added sugar compared to the percentage of other nutrients. Simple arithmetic would allow a consumer to assess whether a particular product had proportionally more or less added sugar the FDA’s daily dietary recommendation. In taking into account all the information available to consumers and the context in which the information is provided and utilized, the court determined that the consumer failed to state a claim for consumer deception. Because the court dismissed the consumer deception claims and the claims for breach of express and implied warranty and for unjust enrichment are based on the consumer deception claims, the court dismissed these also. Because any amendment of the complaint would be futile, the court declined to grant leave to amend (Testone v. Go Macro, LLC, No. 25-cv-1743-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal., April 8, 2026)).

Background. A consumer filed a putative class action against a manufacturer of snack bars alleging that the manufacturer’s labelling of the bars as healthy was false and misleading due to the added sugar in the bars. The products at issue included more than 20 types of snack and protein bars with names such as “Salted-Caramel + Chocolate Chip”, “Cinnamon Roll,” and “Double Chocolate Brownie.” The consumer alleged that the manufacturer intended to deceive consumers and to convince them that the bars were healthier than they actually were. The consumer also alleged that various governmental bodies, including the FDA, establish that the amount of sugar contained in the products was unhealthy and disease-causing. She also alleged that she regularly purchased the products in the past four years and relied on the statements on the packaging that purported to present the products as healthy. The consumer acknowledged that the amount of sugar was disclosed in the NFP but that the label misled consumers by representing the product as healthy despite the sugar content. She did not, however, allege that her health was harmed because of consuming the products. Because in her original complaint the consumer did not identify with particularity the circumstances of her exposure to and reliance on the allegedly deceptive statements, the court granted her leave to amend. In her amended complaint, she brought claims for: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) ; (2) violation of California’s False Advertising Law, (CFAL); (3) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA): (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) intentional misrepresentation; and (8) unjust enrichment.

Consumer deception claims. The court dismissed the consumer’s FAL, CLRA, UCL, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims, each of which were based on the consumer’s defective theory of deception. All these statutes which prohibit deceptive practices consider conduct to be deceptive if it is “likely to deceive” a “reasonable consumer.” Here, the food snack manufacturer argued that reasonable consumers would not be misled by the snack bar’s labels because the statements at issue are directly next to the NFPs which clearly indicate the amount of added sugar in the snack bars. The California Court of Appeal has contrasted cases in which qualifying information was provided on the same side as a challenged statement against other cases in which the qualifying information was shown on a different side of the packaging. When consumers can read the qualifying information on the same side as the challenged statements, courts are more likely to determine that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived. A different analysis applies in the case of an alleged misrepresentation on the “front” of packaging is clarified by information on the back of the packaging. This case does not involve the “front-back” dichotomy but rather the alleged misrepresentations are on the same side of the packaging as the NFP. Here, the consumer’s theory of consumer behavior contradicts well-established law that requires imputing common sense to consumers. The consumers’ alleged assumption in this case is not just unreasonable or fanciful but also implausible. Here, a consumer can readily see how the percentage of added sugar compares to the percentage of other nutrients and simple arithmetic would allow a consumer to assess whether a particular product had proportionally more or less added sugar the FDA’s daily dietary recommendation. In taking into account all the information available to consumers and the context in which the information is provided and utilized, the court determined that the consumer failed to state a claim for consumer deception.

Other claims. Because the court dismissed the consumer deception claims and the claims for breach of express and implied warranty and for unjust enrichment are based on the consumer deception claims, the court dismissed these also.

Leave to amend. The court declined to grant leave to amend as it found that finding that the consumer cannot allege additional facts that would change the representations included on the product labels and, therefore, any amendment would be futile.

The case is No. 25-cv-1743-RSH-KSC.

Judge: Huie, R.

Attorneys: Jack Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC) for Leah Testone. Anthony G. Hopp (Steptoe LLP) for Go Macro, LLC.

Companies: Go Macro, LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions FDCActNews AdvertisingNews FoodNews CaliforniaNews