Brigette Honaker  |  March 11, 2021

Category: Food

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.

Belvita breakfast biscuits

UPDATE:

  • A California federal judge ruled to allow certification in March 2021, after the plaintiffs reportedly revised the damages model and addressed other concerns raised

A California federal judge denied Class certification in a belVita lawsuit in March 2020, taking issue with the proposed Class’ damages model.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant determined that plaintiffs Patrick McMorrow, Marco Ohlin and Melody DiGregorio’s established theory of liability failed to line up with their proposed damages survey.

The survey was proposed by the plaintiffs during their bid for Class certification. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the survey would help determine damages based on participants’ reactions to various slogans such as “Nutritious Sustained Energy,” “Nutritious Steady Energy All Morning” and “4 Hours of Nutritious Steady Energy,” or no claims about energy.

Survey respondents would determine damages by choosing which products they would purchase, assuming the products were marketed with the aforementioned slogans.

Judge Bashant took issue with the proposed survey despite plaintiff arguments that the questions would show how consumers were affected by the slogans.

According to the judge, the aim of the survey was at odds with the complaint and Class certification bid – both of which focused on the sugar content of belVita biscuits.

“Nowhere in the motion do plaintiffs claim that the products’ labels are misleading because the products in fact do not provide the consumer with energy,” Judge Bashant wrote.

“And while it is true that plaintiffs’ complaint broadly takes issue with the claims in general, it is clear that the reason why plaintiffs allege the claims to be misleading is because of the sugar content of the products combined with the use of the word ‘nutritious.’”

Although Judge Bashant declined to certify the Class based on these discrepancies, she did note that focusing the survey on “nutritious” claims instead of energy statements may change her decision.

Indeed, in an order issued in March of 2021, Judge Bashant changed her mind and agreed to certify the Class after the plaintiffs’ expert reportedly addressed issues related to the proposed damages model. The damages model now looks at the value of the allegedly sugary biscuits both with and without the “nutritious” claim.

According to the March order, belVita’s maker can still challenge the plaintiffs’ expert at trial or summary judgment.

The belVita class action lawsuit was filed in November 2017, claiming that Mondelez International Inc. fraudulently marketed their belVita biscuits as healthy. Instead of being a nutritious breakfast option, the belVita products are allegedly full of sugar.

The plaintiffs pointed to a variety of sugar-related health consequences such as obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular diseases, type-2 diabetes, liver disease, inflammation, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, Alzheimer’s, dementia, and some forms of cancer.

“Despite the compelling evidence that sugar acts as a chronic liver toxin, detrimentally affecting health, Mondelez sells a line of high-sugar belVita Breakfast Products that it specifically markets towards consumers ‘who have health and wellness in mind’ with the goal of increasing the price and sales of its belVita Breakfast Products,” states the belVita class action lawsuit.

Mondelez sought to dismiss the belVita class action, prompting plaintiffs to fight against this attempt. In their defense, the plaintiffs said their allegations were viable based on the high sugar content of the belVita breakfast biscuits.

Have you ever bought belVita biscuits? Did you rely on representations that the products provided energy? Let us know in the comment section below.

The consumers are represented by Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M. Flynn and Melanie Persinger of the Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC, and by Paul K. Joseph of the Law Office of Paul K. Joseph PC.

The belVita Class Action Lawsuit is McMorrow, et al. v. Mondelez, Case No. 3:17-cv-02327, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


696 thoughts onBelVita Sugary Biscuit Class Action Lawsuit is Back

  1. Joe says:

    Stfu wit that BULLSHYT

  2. Eldred Fornah says:

    I had relied on the manufacturer’s health benefits claim only to find out now that those claims are essentially sales promotion gimmicks to entrap misinformed clients to their unsuspecting demise per the reports of scientific evidence supporting the irrefutable harm their products are causing or may have hiddenly caused the consumers. I am highy upset, feel very betrayed, and I am scared of my health being under attack by eating Belvita biscuits. I am a regular buyer of these products from Costco in Beltsville Maryland.

  3. Wendy Jongsma says:

    Sounds like a bunch of happy suers to me. If you don’t like the nutrition stats can’t you simply not buy the product? So annoying. I love belvita! Keeps me full for hours.

  4. Debbie pipes says:

    I would buy all the time thinking they were good for me. Now I am diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Please add me.

  5. NANCY MCSWAIN says:

    Oh nuts, I did not read the nutrition facts on this item. I still have quite a few large boxes of the product in my pantry.

    1. David R White says:

      If they’re blueberry, I’ll take them.

  6. Robin Barber says:

    Put me on the list. I assumed these were a healthy alternative to surgery breakfast bars.

    1. Kashmir says:

      Free education in the USA! If you can write this comment & read the word “nutrition”, you can figure out dietary sugar labels or look it up on the internet. Stop making lawyers rich! There’s plenty of other injustices FAR more important issues to occupy our backlogged courts, than people who REFUSE to read a label, thatTHE LAW forced them to put on the product, so you can READ IT to make YOUR OWN INFORMED DECISIONS
      😁

  7. Eileen Birk says:

    Buy these regularly. Cinnamon flavor. Often have a pack when I can’t have breakfast Almost a daily snack. Add me.

  8. David R White says:

    If the California people hate sugar in their consumable food products, they can always go to the Euell Gibbons diet and go outside and pluck some pine tree bark and munch on that. Mmmmm, tasty (NOT!)
    The manufacturer plainly states what the contents of the cookie is. They are not hiding anything. I wish California yuppies would stop trying telling how to live our lives. They are bound to be making loads of money with their whining about everything. Nuts to them.

1 65 66 67

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.