Clif Bar Customers Say Mislabeling Class Action Should Continue

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.

Clif Bar consumers say a class action lawsuit over mislabeling should continue despite the company’s motion to dismiss the case.

The Clif Bar class action lawsuit argues that the company labels some products with the term “white chocolate” even though flavoring is used in those products, not actual white chocolate.

The consumers in the Clif Bar class action lawsuit say this is misleading since reasonable buyers would assume the product contains true white chocolate even though it doesn’t.

Recently, the snack company moved to have the Clif Bar class action lawsuit dismissed, taking issue with the reasonable consumer aspect of the plaintiff’s argument.

The plaintiffs, in response, claim that they deserved the opportunity to present all of their evidence before the court makes a decision on dismissal.

Clif Bar & Co. states that reasonable consumers would not interpret a claim like “natural flavor” to mean that the bars contain true white chocolate.

The packaging of the Clif Bar products in question, according to the defendants, have a “natural flavor” statement included.

The defendant in the Clif Bar class action lawsuit argue that many other companies with similar products use the natural flavor statement in order to make it clear to buyers that the product has the flavor of an ingredient rather than the ingredient itself and that the court should use this information to dismiss the suit.

The women who filed the Clif Bar class action lawsuit did so after reportedly discovering that no white chocolate was actually included inside.

The plaintiffs in the Clif Bar class action lawsuit filed the legal claim on their own behalf as well as for other consumers who were misled in purchasing a “White Chocolate Macademia” or “White Chocolate Macademia Nut” bar.

The defendants allege that the products are not misleading since the labels make it obvious that the white chocolate taste comes from a flavoring, not from white chocolate products.

In response to the Clif Bar class action lawsuit, the defendants also argue that the request for a court order to block the company from marketing those products as having white chocolate inside was inaccurate.

The Clif Bar defendant states in their motion to dismiss that a key aspect of the case is the plaintiffs’ ability to show imminent and actual future injury rather than hypothetical.

The defendant contends that based on the version of the lawsuit as it stands that it has not been shown the plaintiffs will stop purchasing these products based on the discovery that no white chocolate was used.

In their motion to dismiss the Clif Bar class action lawsuit, the defendants say that since the plaintiffs cannot meet this standard, that the case should be stopped and dismissed right now.

The consumers in the Clif Bar class action lawsuit are represented by C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC and David Alan Makman of Makman & Maltz LLP.

The Clif Bar Class Action Lawsuit is Joslin, et al. v. Clif Bar & Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-04941, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Dec. 2, 2019, a federal judge approved an amended complaint alleging that Clif Bar & Co. misled customers in advertising that its energy bars contained white chocolate as opposed to an imitation.