Panera Class Action Lawsuit Says ‘Clean Food’ Marketing is Misleading

A Panera Bread customer has filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that it falsely markets its menu items as “clean food.”

Plaintiff Randall Sally says Panera, also known as Saint Louis Bread Company, markets all of its U.S. menu items as “clean” or “100% clean,” meaning it contains no artificial preservatives, colors, flavors or sweeteners, according to the class action lawsuit.

However, the products are not as advertised, Sally claims.

The Panera class action lawsuit says the menu items are far from “clean food” because they contain multiple “artificial, chemical, and/or synthetic preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, and colors.”

Sally claims consumers expect products marketed as “clean food” to not contain any such artificial ingredients.

According to the Panera nutrition class action lawsuit, Saint Louis Bread Company’s website states: “Food is as it should be. That’s food we think tastes better, feels better, does better. It’s clean food. Food without artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors or colors from artificial sources.”

The website contains many similar statements regarding specific “clean food” items on the menu, such as salads, sandwiches and soups.

The “clean food” claim is also made throughout the restaurant properties, such as on bags, signs and labels near the point of sale, the class action lawsuit states.

However, all these representations are false, Sally says.

“Under Defendants’ own definition, and the expectations of reasonable consumers, the Products cannot be considered ‘100% clean’ and/or ‘clean’ with no artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors or colors from artificial sources because they contain multiple ingredients that are artificial, chemical … ,” the class action lawsuit states.

Sally alleges Panera’s food contains known artificial preservatives such as ascorbic acid, citric acid, potassium sorbate and tocopherols.

The Panera nutrition class action lawsuit also alleges the company’s menu items contain a laundry list of additional artificial ingredients, including Blue 1, canola oil, folic acid, cellulose, glycerin and high-fructose corn syrup, among others.

The class action complaint goes on to list more than 100 Saint Louis Bread Company menu items and itemize the artificial ingredients alleged to be in each one.

The Panera class action lawsuit claims that the defendants, who “hold themselves out to the public as a trusted expert in the production of ‘clean’ food” should have known their food was not, in fact, “clean”. 

Sally says consumers lack the ability to test or independently verify whether a product is “clean,” especially at the point of sale, and that discovering products are not clean requires chemistry knowledge beyond that of an average consumer.

“That is why, even though all of the ingredients listed above are identified on Panera’s website and in some stores, the reasonable consumer would not understand — nor are they expected to understand — that these ingredients are artificial, chemical and/or synthetic preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors,” the class action lawsuit states.

Consumers also can’t be expected to “scour” Panera nutrition information on the website to “confirm or debunk” the prominent “clean food” claims made throughout the store, the complaint says.

Therefore, reasonable consumers have been deceived by the defendants’ representations of their menu items.

A similar class action lawsuit filed against Panera also alleges the company’s marketing is misleading and fools customers who seek out so-called “clean food” in order to avoid residues left by insecticides, herbicides and other chemicals.

The proposed Class includes any Missouri resident who purchased Saint Louis Bread Company products for personal or household use in the five years prior to the filing of the class action lawsuit.

Sally’s complaint alleges Panera is in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act due to their “unlawful practices including deception, false promises, misrepresentation, and/or concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts,” and calls the company’s alleged deceptions “outrageous because of Defendants’ evil motive and/or conscious disregard and/or reckless indifference to the rights and/or safety of Plaintiff and Class Members alike.”

The plaintiff is asking the Court for a return of all purchase costs paid by himself and the Class Members for Saint Louis Bread Company products; declaratory and injunctive relief, including a permanent injunction barring the company from continuing its alleged deceitful practices; punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees and costs; and any other relief the Court deems just. 

He also demands a jury trial.

Have you purchased Panera or Saint Louis Bread Company menu items thinking they were “clean food” products? Tell us about your experience in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Daniel J. Orlowsky of Orlowsky Law LLC and Adam M. Goffstein of Goffstein Law LLC.

The Panera Nutrition Class Action Lawsuit is Randall Sally, et al. v. Panera Bread Company, aka Saint Louis Bread Co., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01068-SEP, in Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Former Chipotle Employee Claims She Was Denied a Breast Pump Break

Judge Tosses Oreo Cookies Ingredients Class Action Lawsuit

Sex Trafficking Survivor Appointed to U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking

Johns Hopkins Housekeeper Challenges Ecolab in OxyCide Lawsuit