Crystal Light False Ad Class Action Lawsuit Survives Dismissal

In recent legal news, a federal judge has denied Kraft Heinz Company’s request to dismiss a Crystal Light false ad class action lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit was filed by customers who claimed the company’s use of the artificial flavoring DL-malic acid in Crystal Light meant that the products were falsely advertised.

U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer was not convinced by Kraft Heinz’s dismissal bid, saying many of their objections were premature. Elements at issue were the certification of a California subclass, why the company might have used DL-malic acid and the necessity of further evidence to back up claims. 

The Crystal Light customers had claimed that Kraft Heinz falsely advertised Crystal Light as being free of artificial flavors, but had included DL-malic acid, an artificial flavoring. The customers note that malic acid is a natural flavor, but has a synthetic counterpart, DL-malic acid, which was used in Crystal Light. According to customers, DL-malic and malic acid are used to impart a sour taste.

Kraft Heinz fired back by saying that customers had not sufficiently established that DL-malic acid was indeed used as a flavoring, and said customers should have provided more documentation around its use. The company asserted they did not use DL-malic acid as a flavoring, but instead to enhance other flavors that are indeed natural.

According to the judge, more documentation and further specificity on how and why the company used DL-malic acid would likely be helpful to consumers later in the legal process. However, these elements were reportedly not enough to doom the Crystal Light false ad class action lawsuit at this stage. He said that whether DL-malic acid was used as its own flavor, or as an enhancement to another flavor, was not something that would merit throwing out the customers’ claims.

The judge also rejected Kraft Heinz’s attempt to say that customers had speculated that the company used DL-malic acid as opposed to malic acid because it was less expensive than its natural counterpart. According to the judge, the presence of DL-malic acid in the product was the key element, not the potential reason for its use.

Judge Fischer also asserted that the customers had sufficiently established the company’s alleged intention in using DL-malic acid, despite protestations that the customers’ allegations are too general.

In their complaint, the customers asserted that Kraft Heinz knowingly misled customers about the nature of Crystal Light products. Allegedly, most customers would not be able to tell that DL-malic acid is a synthetic ingredient, and would have no choice but to rely on the packaging of the product. The plaintiffs argue that a consumer would need “advanced understanding of organic chemistry” and would have to conduct scientific analysis of the product to understand its composition.

To support their claim that DL-malic acid is artificial, customers explained that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act lays out specifications for what can be considered natural, and DL-malic acid would not meet these specifications.

The customers summarized saying, “DL-Malic Acid is not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.”

The Crystal Light labeling class action lawsuit states that Kraft Heinz aimed to take advantage of customers’ lack of knowledge to provide them with a product less valuable than advertised, saving on costs along the way.

This Crystal Light ingredients false advertising lawsuit expresses how many customers prioritize purchasing all-natural products, seeing them as more valuable, of higher quality and good for human and environmental health. 

Allegedly, many consumers would not have purchased Crystal Light if they knew that it contained artificial flavoring, or would not have paid as much for it as they did. The Crystal Light false advertising class action lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of all similarly affected customers.

Do you seek out naturally-flavored foods? If so, why? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The consumers are represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC and Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC.

The Kraft Heinz Crystal Light False Ad Class Action Lawsuit is Narguess Noohi, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-10658, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

How Long Can You Collect LTD Benefits? 

NJ Catholic Church Compensation Program Offers Settlements With A Catch

Family Seeks $176M Over COVID-19 Deaths in Veterans Care Facility

DeVry University Job Opportunities Class Action Settlement