Kind class action over ‘all natural’ claims decertified, dismissed

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.

Update:

• A federal judge in New York decertified and dismissed class action claims stating Kind LLC mislabeled its snack bars as “all natural.”
• The judge ruled classes of Kind snack bar buyers from New York, Florida and California failed to show that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the company’s labeling. 
• The decision ended multidistrict litigation that began in 2015 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Kind that some of its products did not meet its standards to be described as “healthy.” 
• In 2017, Kind discontinued the labeling practices that got it negative attention; however, the company maintained it never made illegitimate statements. 
• Consumers claimed they paid a premium price for the Kind snack bars after being deceived by alleged false labeling stating the products were “all-natural” or “non-GMO” because the bars contained heavily processed and genetically modified ingredients.

KIND false advertising lawsuit overview:

• Who: Consumers sued KIND, LLC, alleging the company falsely advertised the ingredients of some of its products.
• Why: The plaintiffs allege KIND tried to pass their nut bars and granolas off as being made from natural ingredients when in fact they were made from artificial ones.
• Where: The lawsuit is underway in federal court in New York.

(Aug. 12, 2021)

A class action lawsuit alleging that KIND, LLC, falsely advertised its nut bars and granolas, leading customers to believe they were made from natural ingredients when they are allegedly made from a “conglomeration of chemically-synthesized” ingredients, has been certified in New York federal court.

Senior District Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that the class action lawsuit against the food manufacturer can move forward, writing “KIND argues that Plaintiffs are unable to show that the label would mislead a reasonable customer. But this argument largely misses the mark at this stage. The operative issue on class certification is whether the question of materiality predominates,” which he found it did.

Pauley rejected KIND’s arguments that differences between three labels mentioned in the class action lawsuit meant the consumers did not share a common complaint, saying that while KIND labels varied, “all the labeling over the putative class period is allegedly deceptive.”

He also rejected KIND’s argument that the consumers did not meet typicality qualifications as they hadn’t bought KIND bars since 2015 and had never bought the company’s Healthy Grain Clusters, and he had added that the courts did not require customers to show receipts, as KIND had said they should.

“This consumer class action spins a familiar tale,” he wrote.

“A large company produces similar products with different labels. Should employing slightly different labels allow a company to escape liability?… if this Court declined to certify the proposed classes, consumer-product companies would have a roadmap to avoid class actions.”

Pauley wrote that the four factors that weigh in favor of certification include the low cost of KIND bars and the relative simplicity of consumer protection actions; the fact that the case had already been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation; the desirability to concentrate the claims due to the fact consumers would likely not bring individual suits given the low cost of the product; and difficulties in managing the case are outweighed by the benefits.

He denied the consumers’ bid for an injunctive class, but certified the three state classes.

KIND consumers filed the class action lawsuit against the company alleging that KIND uses descriptors such as “All Natural” and “Non-GMO” to capitalize on the highly profitable and fast-growing health food market.

However, the consumers say, the products do not live up to expectations and contain “a conglomeration of chemically-synthesized and highly-processed ingredients.”

Additionally, the consumers allege that testing shows approximately 90 percent of canola, 89 percent of corn, and 94 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, meaning the products are not free from GMO.

Did you buy KIND products based on the company’s All Natural label? Tell us your experience in the comments section!

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP; Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP; and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC.

The Kind “All Natural” Snack Bar Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, Case No. 1:15-md-02645, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Ballreich’s Recalls Potato Chips Due to Potential Salmonella Contamination
• Recall Check: Panera Soup With Latex Gloves, 60K Pounds of Aldi Frozen Chicken
• Goldfish Crackers Contain Sugar Despite ‘0g Sugars’ Claim, Alleges Class Action Lawsuit
• Kellogg ‘Healthy’ Cereals $13M Class Action Settlement