Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Court partially denies Chobani's motion to dismiss lawsuit over ‘only natural ingredients’ Greek yogurt labeling, (Jul 16, 2025)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

A reasonable consumer could be misled by the “all natural ingredients” labeling since the ingredients go through industrial processing.

The district court in San Diego, California largely denied Chobani, LLC's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that its "Zero Sugar Greek Yogurts" are deceptively labeled as containing "Only Natural Ingredients." The court allowed most of the claims to proceed, particularly those concerning stevia leaf extract, monk fruit extract, and manufactured citric acid. However, the court did grant Chobani's motion to dismiss claims related to artificial coloring agents because the consumer failed to allege specific facts constituting reliance (Albrigo v. Chobani, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-01418-BJC-KSC (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2025)).

The lawsuit centers on the interpretation of Chobani’s "Only Natural Ingredients" wording on its Greek yogurt products. The plaintiff, representing a putative class, asserts that Chobani's "Zero Sugar Greek Yogurts" contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, specifically stevia leaf extract, monk fruit extract, manufactured citric acid (MCA), and certain coloring agents, despite the "Only Natural Ingredients" label. The plaintiff contends that these ingredients undergo industrial processes that render them artificial, or in the case of coloring, are not naturally occurring.

Chobani moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Rule 9(b) for lack of particularity in fraud allegations, arguing that a reasonable consumer would not be misled and that federal law recognizes minimally processed ingredients as "natural." Chobani also challenged the plaintiff's standing and raised a substantiation claim.

UCL and FAL claims - stevia leaf and monk fruit extracts. The court found that the consumer sufficiently alleged that the stevia leaf extract and monk fruit extract in the products undergo transformative manufacturing processes that would lead a reasonable consumer to consider them "not natural." The plaintiff's complaint detailed the extensive, multi-step industrial processes involved in producing these extracts. For stevia leaf extract, the process includes steps like chemical or electro-coagulation, filtering in an industrial tank, and the use of water-immiscible solvents like pure ethanol, concluding with spray-drying in industrial equipment. Similarly, for monk fruit extract, the complaint described a process involving heating to deactivate enzymes, reverse osmosis to remove water, chromatography techniques, and the use of activated carbon and adsorption/separation polymer resin columns, with ethanol used to wash components from the resin, ultimately resulting in a "concentrated powder or liquid." The court reasoned that these detailed allegations go beyond mere speculation, establishing a plausible claim that such industrially processed ingredients contradict a "natural" labeling claim.

The court distinguished this case from Vitort v. Kroger, 2021 WL 6061864 (D. Or. Sept. 13, 2021), a case Chobani relied upon, by noting that the ingredients in Vitort were derived from fruit and described as "Just Fruit," implying a like-kind derivation. In contrast, the processed extracts in the instant case are more akin to "non-fruit ingredients" that would likely mislead a reasonable consumer. Furthermore, the court dismissed Chobani's reliance on USDA guidance for "natural" labels, pointing out that the guidance specifically pertains to "meats and poultry products" and not to fruit or vegetable extracts, thus being inapplicable. The determination of whether these processes are "minimal" in the eyes of a reasonable consumer was deemed a factual inquiry better suited for a later litigation stage and not on a motion to dismiss.

Manufactured citric acid (MCA) claims. Regarding manufactured citric acid, the court again sided with the plaintiff, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Chobani used industrially manufactured MCA in some products, rendering the "Only Natural Ingredients" label potentially misleading. The plaintiff's allegations specify that the citric acid used was "industrially manufactured" from the fermentation of crude sugars by the mold Aspergillus niger, and that the manufacturing process involves synthetic industrial chemicals such as n-octyl alcohol and isoparaffinic petroleum hydrocarbons, with potential trace amounts remaining in the final product.

The court found support in FDA warning letters cited by the plaintiff, which indicated that the use of "natural" on products containing citric acid produced through such methods was "inappropriate" because "nothing artificial or synthetic has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food."

The court rejected Chobani's argument that "Only Natural Ingredients" differed substantively from "All Natural," concluding that if products contain only natural ingredients, the result is an all-natural finished product. The court noted that plaintiff's complaint also met the Rule 9(b) pleading standard by identifying "who, what, when, where, and how" the alleged misconduct occurred.

Coloring agents claim. In contrast, the court granted Chobani's motion to dismiss the claims related to coloring agents from vegetable juice concentrate. The plaintiff's argument relied primarily on FDA guidance suggesting that "natural claims" are erroneously interpreted by consumers to mean the color is a naturally occurring constituent in the food. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to present any facts demonstrating actual consumer reliance on this representation, instead offering only conclusory assertions. Citing Fried v. Snapple, 753 F. Supp.3d 1145 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2024), the court reiterated that it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that adding a natural product (vegetable juice concentrate) to another natural product renders the latter unnatural, especially when the ingredient list on the product's back label clearly states "vegetable juice concentrate (for color)." The court therefore granted Chobani’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Standing and substantiation claims. The court also addressed Chobani's arguments regarding the consumer's standing and the substantiation claim. Chobani argued that the plaintiff failed to establish a concrete economic injury or that she paid a premium price. The court rejected this, affirming that overpayment is a viable theory of economic injury and that plaintiff sufficiently alleged reliance on the "Only Natural Ingredients" representation, leading her to overpay for the products. The complaint asserted that the consumer sought "only natural ingredients" as a healthier alternative and that the products cost more than similar, non-misleadingly labeled alternatives.

Finally, the court denied Chobani's motion to dismiss based on a "substantiation claim," clarifying that the plaintiff was not attempting to bring such a claim, which is not privately actionable under California law, but rather alleging that she was misled and suffered injury due to misrepresentation. The court found that the plaintiff did provide factual support for her allegations that the ingredients were not natural. The consumer also conceded that she had not alleged sufficient facts for injunctive relief, rendering that aspect of Chobani's motion moot.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-01418-BJC-KSC.

Judge: Cheeks, B.

Attorneys: Jack Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC) for Laura Willis Albrigo. Trenton H. Norris (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for Chobani, LLC.

Companies: Chobani, LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews