Fruit Snacks Buyers, General Mills Take 2nd Shot at Settlement Approval in False Ad Class Action

General Mills Fruit Snacks False Ad Settlement Overview:

• Who: Consumers want a California judge to approve their settlement with General Mills.
• What: After reducing attorney fees and nixing a “kicker” to General Mills, the parties say that a previously rejected settlement that would end fruit snacks false ad claims is ready for court approval.
• Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in California federal court.

Consumers are urging a California federal judge for the second time to approve their settlement with General Mills over allegedly falsely advertising its fruit snacks as having no artificial flavors.

US District Judge M. James Lorenz rejected an earlier proposed settlement this year due to fears of collusion, saying that “the class receives no monetary award while the counsel receives $725,000 for fees and costs, and each named Plaintiff receives $5,000.”

In addition, General Mills would receive a “kicker,” meaning that any unpaid settlement funds would have gone back to the company and not been used in a way that would benefit the Class.  

Counsel for the consumers and General Mills have come back to Lorenz with a revised settlement that requires General Mills to completely remove the “no artificial flavors” label from 151 products, instead of using an asterisk with a clarification like the earlier settlement required. It also reduces the attorney’s fees to $600,000 and removes the kicker.

Fruit Snacks False Advertising: ‘No Artificial Flavors’

The settlement would close out a class action lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff California resident Crystal Hilsley, who alleged that she was duped into paying $2 to $3 each for various fruit snacks featuring television and movie characters, such as Scooby-Doo, SpongeBob, and Trolls in her General Mills class action lawsuit filed in 2018.  

Hilsley said she had bought the products several times since 2011, believing they were naturally flavored, and that she was deceived by the products’ labeling, which prominently represented that the snacks contained “no artificial flavors.”

“If any artificial flavor is present which ‘simulates, resembles or reinforces’ the characterizing flavor, the food must be prominently labeled as ‘Artificially Flavored’” under California law, according to the class action lawsuit.

Hilsley had alleged that the products’ ingredient lists violated state and federal law by listing “malic acid” instead of the specific industrial chemical “d-l malic acid” actually contained in the General Mills fruit snacks.

Have you purchased General Mills fruit snacks? Were you surprised to learn they contained artificial flavors? Let us know your experience in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ronald A. Marron, Michael T. Houchin, and Lilach Halperin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and David Elliot of the Law Office of David Elliot. 

The General Mills Fruit Snacks Class Action Lawsuit is Crystal Hilsley, et al. v. General Mills Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Taste of the Wild, Kirkland Pet Foods Grain-Free Products $8M Class Action Settlement
• Plum Organics Baby, Toddler Food Claims Mislead Parents, Says Class Action
• Recall Check: Fake USDA Inspection Stickers Found on SAS Foods Chicken, Beef Empanadas
• Conagra Foods Must Face Lawsuit After Chef’s Quality Cooking Spray Allegedly Explodes, Burning Chef