Health Law Daily Wrap Up, LABELING AND PACKAGING (FOOD, DRUGS & MEDICAL DEVICES)—S.D. Cal.: Consumer’s lawsuit over non-GMO labels on avocado oil products dismissed, (Sep 8, 2025)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

GMO avocados have never been sold to consumers anywhere in the world.

A federal district court in California has dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit challenging the use of non-GMO labels on avocado oil products, ruling that reasonable consumers would not be misled by such labeling given the undisputed fact that genetically modified avocados have never been commercially available anywhere in the world. The plaintiff had alleged that the non-GMO labeling was misleading because avocado products have always been GMO-free. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for consumer deception under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law (Whiteside v. Chosen Foods, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00481-CAB-DDL (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2025)).

Background. A California resident brought a nationwide class action against Chosen Foods, LLC, which manufactures and distributes avocado oil products bearing "non-GMO" and "non-GMO Project Verified" labels. The plaintiff purchased Chosen 100% Pure Avocado Oil Spray 2-pack and alleged that the non-GMO labeling was misleading because all avocado products are inherently free from genetically modified organisms.

The crux of the plaintiff's argument was that the non-GMO claims were "meaningless" and represented a deceptive attempt to distinguish Chosen Foods' products from other avocado oil products when no GMO avocado oils exist in the marketplace. The plaintiff alleged she relied on the non-GMO claims when making her purchase decision and would not have bought the product, or would have paid less for it, had she known the labeling provided no meaningful distinction from competing avocado oil products.

Both parties agreed that GMO avocados have never been sold to consumers anywhere globally, and that Chosen Foods' products are legitimately certified by the Non-GMO Project. The plaintiff's claims were based on theories that the labeling created false impressions about product differentiation and justified premium pricing.

Chosen Foods moved to dismiss the complaint.

Standing. The court first addressed defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, ultimately rejecting this challenge. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged economic injury by claiming she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less absent the alleged misconduct. The court noted that in false advertising cases, plaintiffs who contend they paid more than they otherwise would have, or bought products they otherwise would not have purchased, satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for constitutional standing.

Analysis of product label. Following Ninth Circuit precedent directing courts to begin analysis with front labels, the court examined the Non-GMO Project Verified certification logo appearing on the product's front panel. The court found no reasonable consumer would be misled by this labeling, reasoning that reasonable consumers would understand the logo simply means the product is certified by the Non-GMO Project, which is factually accurate.

The court drew support from the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Myers v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 22-55930 (9th Cir. June 24, 2024), where similar certification logo claims were rejected. In Myers, a plaintiff challenged Rainforest Alliance Certified logos on chocolate products, arguing they falsely suggested the products were made without child labor or deforestation. The Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal, finding reasonable consumers would not be led to believe the certification represented specific production methods beyond meeting the certifying organization's standards.

Applying this precedent, the court concluded that reasonable avocado oil consumers would understand the Non-GMO Project Verified label means the products are certified by that organization, without making comparative claims about other avocado oil products' GMO status.

The court next considered the product packaging as a whole, including side panel language containing additional non-GMO claims. The plaintiff argued that the combination of the front logo and side panel language suggested Chosen Foods products were non-GMO while other avocado oils contained GMOs, thereby justifying premium pricing.

The court rejected this interpretation as an "imaginative" reading unsupported by the reasonable consumer standard. The court noted that plaintiff's argument relied on allegations of implied meaning rather than what the label actually depicted and stated, which courts have found insufficient under California consumer protection law.

The court relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874 *(*9th Cir. July 15, 2021), which provided framework for evaluating consumer understanding based on contextual knowledge about food production. In Trader Joe's, the circuit rejected claims that honey labeled "100% New Zealand Manuka Honey" was misleading despite containing only 57-62% Manuka-derived honey, finding reasonable honey consumers would understand the impossibility of single-source honey production given bee foraging behavior.

The Trader Joe's decision established that reasonable consumers should have basic understanding of how foods they purchase are produced, and that contextual inferences about products extend beyond physical labeling. The circuit also considered factors like pricing signals that would inform reasonable consumer expectations.

The court therefore concluded that reasonable consumers would understand that only certain foods are available in both GMO and non-GMO forms, that avocado oil is available only in non-GMO form, and that avocado oil serves as a non-GMO alternative to oils like canola or vegetable oil that do have GMO variants. Given this context, the court found reasonable consumers would not interpret the labeling as making comparative claims about other avocado oil products' GMO status.

Dismissal with prejudice. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to identify any product statements making assertions about other avocado oil products' GMO status and had not plausibly alleged consumer deception. Finding that plaintiff could not possibly amend her complaint to state a viable claim, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-00481-CAB-DDL.

Judge: Bencivengo, C.

Attorneys: Craig Wallace Straub (Crosner Legal, P.C.) for Summer Whiteside. Keri E. Borders (King & Spalding LLP) for Chosen Foods, LLC.

Companies: Chosen Foods, LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews FoodStandardsNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews