California Nestlé Candy Class Action Settlement Website Is Active

A website has been established for a Class of California Nestlé candy purchasers in a class action lawsuit alleging that candy boxes were underfilled.

Though the website is live, the settlement is not accepting claims at this time. A judge has yet to approve the settlement deal. Top Class Actions will provide information on how to file a claim as soon as the details are available.

The Nestlé candy Class includes individuals who purchased theater candy boxes of Raisinets, Buncha Crunch, Butterfinger Bites, Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels, Rainbow Nerds, SweeTarts, Spree, Gobstopper, and/or Sno-Caps in California since Feb. 9, 2013. This Class was certified by the court in April 2020.

The recently established website helps inform the Class of their rights in the Nestlé class action lawsuit. If a settlement or verdict is reached to provide cash payments to the certified Class, Class Members will be informed of such a deal on the website.

Until further developments affect the Class, Class Members have several options. If they wish to remain a Member of the Class but want to retain their own attorneys, Class Members’ lawyers must enter a notice of appearance with the court by Nov. 9, 2020.

If Class Members want to be excluded from the Class, they also have until Nov. 9, 2020 to mail their requests to the court. Excluding themselves will make it so that they will not benefit from any payments resulting from this case. However, Class Members who exclude themselves will have the ability to take separate legal action against Nestlé for the same issue.

Class Members who have further questions can contact the website administrator – CPT Group Inc. – by calling 1-(888) 671-0699.

Plaintiffs Jade Thomas, Ketrina Gordon, and Carey Hoffman filed their Nestlé candy class action lawsuit in February 2017. According to the plaintiffs, Nestlé purposefully underfills their cardboard candy boxes in order to deceive consumers about how much product is contained within the packages.

Instead of filling the candy boxes all the way, Nestlé allegedly fills the opaque boxes only 52% of the way. The plaintiffs argue that, as a result of these practices, 48% of the candy boxes are empty.

According to the Nestlé candy class action lawsuit, this empty space is not functional “slack fill.” Slack fill is the empty space in product packaging which serves a purpose such as protecting the items within. The air in chip bags is one example of functional slack fill as it protects the chips found within.

In contrast, the empty space in Nestlé candy boxes is non-functional slack fill, according to the plaintiffs. This space allegedly serves only to mislead consumers into thinking they will get more candy. Because the Nestlé candy boxes are opaque, consumers don’t have a way to check how much candy they will get before making their purchases.

“Defendant intentionally misleads and shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting the amount of candy actually contained in each opaque box of Product that conceals from consumers the amount of candies inside,” the plaintiffs allege in their Nestlé candy class action lawsuit.

“The Products’ packaging leads the reasonable consumer to believe he or she is purchasing a box full of candies.”

The Nestlé candy class action lawsuit contends that the plaintiffs and other consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less if they were aware they were only getting 52% of the product they expected. As a result, the plaintiffs argue that they were financially injured by the nonfunction slack fill as they were denied the “full benefit of their bargain.”

On April 29, Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Buckley certified the Class of Nestlé candy purchasers after finding that the Class is “manageable and superior.” Specifically, Judge Buckley determined that it would be impractical for all Class Members to bring separate actions against Nestlé over the same issue.

According to the court, the Class has common facts and questions of law and Class Members will likely employ the same claims and defenses. As a result, trying the issue for a Class of Nestlé candy purchasers makes more sense.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that there are substantial benefits to trying the relatively small dollar value claims of putative class members together, and that doing so is manageable,” Judge Buckley ruled.

Are you included in the Nestlé candy purchaser Class? Let us know in the comment section below.

Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, and Bahar Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm PC along with Barbara A. Rohr and Benjamin Heikali of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The Nestlé Candy Class Action Lawsuit is Jade Thomas, et al. v. Nestlé U.S.A. Inc, et al., Case No. BC649863, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Nestlé Class Action Says White Chips Are Fake Chocolate

Nestle Class Action Says Chocolate Comes From Child Slave Labor

Catholic Church Sex Abuse Prevention Programs Inadequate, Says Think Tank

In Wage and Hour Lawsuit, Juul Denies Contract Canvassers Were Employees