Crisco lawsuit claiming Crisco butter spray doesn’t contain actual butter to proceed

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 Illinois declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing B&G Foods Inc. of falsely marketing one of its Crisco brand cooking sprays. 
• The consumer behind the complaint argues B&G markets its “Butter — No-Stick Spray” as a butter spray despite it not actually containing any butter. 
• The judge determined that B&G’s use of the word “butter” was enough to perhaps reasonably convince a consumer that the product contained butter.
• The consumer argues that the allegedly false marketing harms consumers who purchase the product because they value the dairy fats found in butter and want to avoid processed vegetable oils. 
• B&G contended that a reasonable consumer would not think the product was made from butter, arguing butter would be solid if at room temperature.

Crisco butter spray class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: An Illinois man brought a class action lawsuit against J.M. Smucker. 
• Why: The plaintiff alleges J.M. Smucker falsely advertises its Crisco-brand “Butter – No-Stick Spray,” featuring pictures of the dairy product, but using “highly refined vegetable oils” to make the spray. 
• Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in Illinois federal court. 

(Sept. 21, 2021)

J.M. Smucker, which produces “Butter – No-Stick Spray” under its Crisco brand, misled the public because the product does not contain any butter, as shown on the ingredient list, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Charles Strow claims J.M. Smucker violated the public’s trust by selling an item in a container in which the largest word is “Butter,” along with a picture of a sizzling pat of butter atop pancakes. Strow says he and other consumers reasonably expect butter in the product; however, the Crisco spray is actually made using highly refined vegetable oils. 

“The FDA recommends that where a food is labeled ‘Butter [_]’ or uses the word ‘butter’ in conjunction with its name, reasonable consumers will expect that whenever butter could be used in a product, it would be, instead of butter substitutes,” the class action lawsuit points out. 

Given the absence of any butter, the product is required to be identified as an artificially butter flavored no-stick spray, according to the lawsuit. While the front label contains a statement of “natural and artificial flavor,” this is insufficient to disclose to consumers the product has no butter.

Crisco ‘Butter’ Labeling on No-Stick Spray Misleads Consumers

Consumers were also misled because J.M. Smucker also sells an olive oil no-stick spray that actually contains olive oil. Additionally, competing products are prominently identified as “butter-flavored” and disclose they are flavored by natural and artificial flavors.

“Whether a product contains the ingredient identified on a front label is basic information consumers rely on when making decisions at the store,” the lawsuit states. “Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and describe the components, attributes and features of a product, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives.”

The lawsuit also alleges the product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less than approximately $3.49 per 6 oz — more than Strow and other consumers would have paid had they known the Crisco butter spray did not contain butter. 

J.M. Smucker allegedly sold more of the  product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had the plaintiff and proposed Class Members  known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it.  

Strow wants to represent Illinois consumers, as well as those in Iowa and Arkansas, who purchased Crisco butter spray. .

The plaintiff wants a court order stopping the alleged false advertising of Crisco “Butter – No-Stick Spray,” along with damages, attorney, and court fees paid by J.M. Smucker. 

J.M. Smucker was recently hit with a class action lawsuit claiming the company misrepresented the amount of protein in a slew of other products, including its peanut butter, Smucker’s Uncrustables Sandwiches in Peanut Butter and Grape Jelly, Peanut Butter and Strawberry Jam, and Peanut Butter and Honey flavors.

Have you purchased J.M. Smucker’s Crisco “Butter – No-Stick Spray” believing it contained butter? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 

The Crisco Butter Spray Class Action Lawsuit is Charles Strow, et al., v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-05104, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Gerber Broke Public Trust By Selling Baby Food With High Levels Of Toxic Heavy Metals, Class Action Says
• Class Action Lawsuits Claiming Tyson Foods Supervisors Made Bets on How Many Plant Workers Would Contract COVID-19 is in Limbo Between State and Federal Court
• Ready Pac Foods, Inc. Recalls Ready-to-Eat Salad Products Containing Meat and Poultry due to Misbranding and Undeclared Allergen
• Turkey Price Fixing $4.6M Class Action Lawsuit Settlement