Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—S.D.N.Y.: Joe & The Juice to defend claims based on alleged oil blend in drinks, (Oct 23, 2026)

By Leah S. Poniatowski, J.D.

Consumers in putative class action met pleading requirements for breach of warranty, but some state law issues were dismissed.

A group of six consumers who purchased juices from Joe & The Juice at locations throughout the United States adequately pleaded that the company had breached the express warranty to overcome the company’s motion to dismiss the claim in a putative class action based on the alleged misrepresentation of the olive oil ingredient listed on the drink’s menu, a federal district court in New York ruled. The court narrowed the claims proceeding against the company to include a single claim under New York law and unjust enrichment for the non-New York citizen consumers, dismissing the complaint in part (Ansari v. Joe & The Juice New York LLC, No. 25-cv-4643 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2026)).

Background. Joe & The Juice New York LLC and Joe & The Juice US Holdings, Inc. provide fast food that is marketed as healthy, high-quality, and made from natural ingredients and are priced higher to reflect the higher quality. Among their offerings are juices and on the label of all but one, “olive oil” is the only listed oil in the ingredients. In late 2024, an online publication summarized a social-media post in which an employee, after being asked what type of oil was used at the restaurant, presented a tin labelling the oil as a blend of 95% canola oil and 5% olive oil. Several consumers throughout the United States filed state law claims against the juice company on the basis that canola oil is less expensive, less flavorful, and less healthy than olive oil as part of a putative class under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the company moved to dismiss.

Breach of warranty. The consumers alleged that the juice company breached the express warranty under section 2-313 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as adopted and codified in the eight states in which the consumers are citizens. According to applicable law, a valid claim under this UCC provision requires a material statement amounting to a warranty, reliance upon this warranty as the basis of the agreement, breach of the warranty, and injury to the consumer. Consumers may establish the breach by asserting that a label is materially misleading and would likely deceive or mislead a reasonable consumer.

According to the North American Olive Oil Association, an “olive oil” product must be extracted solely from olives and cannot be blended with other oils. The consumers alleged that the menus warranted that there was only olive oil in their products, this misrepresentation would likely continue to deceive and mislead consumers, and they were injured by paying a higher price for the products than had they known the juices contained a blend. The juice company did not proffer any valid law or argument to merit dismissal at this stage in the litigation.

Pre-suit notice. Relatedly, the juice company did not establish that the pre-suit notice was inadequate. The court explained that although the UCC does not have an express pre-suit notification requirement, under section 2-607(3)(a), buyers must notify the seller of a breached warranty “within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach.” Case law adds that the substance of a notice only needs to “alert the prospective defendant that the transaction was troublesome.”

The consumers had sent a certified letter in early April 2025, and the juice company had submitted a copy of the letter from the consumers’ attorneys as part of its motion to dismiss. The letter did not include a claim for breach of express warranty, but it did assert that the company had breached provisions of the New York General Business Law (NYGBL) by falsely claiming that the juice products contained olive oil and not a “harmful concoction made up of over 95% canola oil.” The court was satisfied that the written notice to the juice company alerted the company of the consumers’ assertion that their juices did not reflect the contents as presented to buyers.

Moreover, the court determined that the pre-suit notice presented material facts in dispute as to whether the delay between the December 2024 publication and the April 2025 notice was reasonable, which was better suited to a jury to resolve. Therefore, the company’s motion to dismiss the breach of warranty claim was denied.

State law claims. The court held that only the consumer who had purchased a juice in New York could assert claims based on the NYGBL, dismissing the other consumers’ claims premised on sections 349 and 350 of the NYGBL. Under a New York state appellate decision, plaintiffs must allege more than that a product’s misrepresentation “emanated” from a company’s headquarters in New York.

Relatedly, because there were no consumers as part of the complaint who were citizens of Minnesota or Washington D.C., the company sought to dismiss those allegations as not meeting the class action requirements. The court concluded that this challenge to class certification was not proper at the motion to dismiss stage and denied the company’s motion for surviving claims under those jurisdictions.

Multi-state claims. However, the court agreed with company that the consumers failed to substantiate their claims in count five of their complaint, merely listing the statutes of twelve state consumer protection statutes. Because the elements of each statute were not identified nor any explanation of how the facts established the elements, the company’s motion to dismiss these claims was granted.

Unjust enrichment. Finally, the unjust enrichment claims from the New York transaction were duplicative of the express warranty and NYGBL claims and, in accordance with established law proscribing those kinds of claims, were dismissed. However, the unjust enrichment claims premised on other state law may proceed as the company did not show that those state laws do not recognize duplicative claims.

The case is No. 25-cv-4643 (PKC).

Judge: Castel, P.

Attorneys: Chantal Khalil Levy (Weitz & Luxenberg, PC) for Neda Ansari, Vy Le, Annabelle Pulver, Usra Salim and Malcolm Brooks. Eric Edward Stern (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP) for Joe & The Juice New York LLC and Joe & The Juice US Holdings Inc.

Companies: Joe & The Juice New York LLC; Joe & The Juice US Holdings Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews GCNNews LabelingNews NewYorkNews