Cert. Sought in Goya Drink Labeling Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Three plaintiffs have filed a motion in federal court to certify a Class of Goya drink consumers anticipated to number in the tens of thousands who have allegedly been deceived by the company’s labeling.

The Goya drink labeling class action lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2014, alleges that Goya omitted the labeling of a cancer-causing food coloring on several of its products.

The unsafe ingredient that prompted the lawsuit is 4-methlyimidazole, also known as 4-MEI. 4-MEI is a byproduct produced when caramel coloring is made, and the substance has been associated with a link to cancer and birth defects. The plaintiffs told the court that they would not have purchased the chemical-containing drinks if the labels would have disclosed it as an ingredient.

Two Goya drinks purchased by the plaintiffs allegedly contain this food coloring chemical byproduct: Malta Goya and Goya Sangria. “Plaintiffs bought Malta Goya and Goya Sangria beverages while unbeknownst to them, the beverages contained a [carcinogen] not disclosed on the labels, in violation of California’s Proposition 65,” the plaintiffs state in their motion seeking certification of the Goya class action lawsuit. “Pursuant to Prop 65, Goya was required to post on the products’ labels a warning to consumers that the products contained a chemical known to cause cancer.”

In addition to the motion for Class certification filed by the plaintiffs last week, Goya filed a motion of its own requesting summary judgment on the case. Goya asserts that the consumers cannot seek injunctive relief since the plaintiffs demonstrate in their testimony that they do not intend to purchase the company’s drinks in the future.

In January 2014, another plaintiff who is not named in the current case served Goya with a Prop 65 Notice of Violation. This plaintiff alleged that Malta Goya, Goya Sangria and Goya Ginger Beer did not include a clear and reasonable warning of the 4-MEI chemical as mandated by Prop 65.

As a result of this previous lawsuit, the parties came to a resolution after negotiations, without Goya admitting any wrongdoing. Goya agreed to only sell the products in California if they contained “29 micrograms, or less, of 4-MEI per 12-ounce serving.” Goya states that they responded to the agreement to reformulate the products and halted sales in order to reformulate the drinks before resuming sales, so they believe they have already met previous obligations to address the 4-MEI issue.

In addition to reformulating the drinks to comply with Prop 65 allegations, Goya said the agreement prevents other California consumers from relitigating the same claims.

Goya further states in their motion for summary judgment that if their motion is declined, they request that the court toss any Prop 65-related claims and any claims referring to Ginger Beer since none of the plaintiffs actually purchased that product.

In response to the plaintiffs’ requests that Goya disgorge profits, the company told the court that the plaintiffs did not disclose the details of their purchases including which drinks they bought and the prices they paid for the drinks and therefore it would not be possible to calculate an amount for restitution under the plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment.

Up to this point, U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz has not sided with Goya’s requests to toss consumer claims.

The Goya Drink Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Cortina v. Goya Foods Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00169, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.