Clif Bar class action alleges Clif Blok Energy Chews falsely advertise caffeine content

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 Blok Energy Chews class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: Jose Uribe, Patrick Dunn and Judith Vergien filed a class action lawsuit against Clif Bar & Company. 
• Why: Clif Bar is accused of misleading consumers about the caffeine content of its Clif Blok Energy Chews. 
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. 

Clif Bar misleads consumers about the amount of caffeine each of its Clif Blok Energy Chews cube’s contain, a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

Plaintiffs Jose Uribe, Patrick Dunn and Judith Vergien claim Clif Bar misleadingly represents that each of the six cubes in its Clif Blok Energy Chews packages contain either 25mg or 50 mg of caffeine. 

Uribe, Dunn and Vergien argue that, in reality, the Clif Blok Energy Chews contain between 25mg and 50mg of caffeine per three cubes out of a six-cube package. 

“Thus, consumers are effectively getting only one-third (1/3) of the advertised amount of caffeine per package of the Product,” the Clif Bar class action states. 

Uribe, Dunn and Vergien want to represent a nationwide class along with California and New York subclasses of consumers who have purchased Clif Blok Energy Chews in either the black cherry, orange or tropical punch flavors. 

Clif Bar could “easily correct” the allegedly misleading advertising by including a label of “per serving” when addressing the caffeine amount on the front of the Clif Blok Energy Chews product packaging, the Clif Bar class action alleges.

Clif Bar class action alleges company discloses caffeine content per serving in ‘small font’ on bottom of packaging.

Uribe, Dunn and Vergien claim Clif Bar “tried to hide this information from consumers” by placing a “small print disclaimer” in “small font” disclosing the caffeine content per serving under a flap on the bottom of the products packaging. 

“No reasonable consumer would expect small print language buried on the bottom panel of the Product’s packaging to contain language inconsistent with the front-facing representation,” the Clif Bar class action states. 

Uribe, Dunn and Vergien claim Clif Bar is guilty of fraud and breach of express warranty and in violation of New York General Business Law and California’s Unfair Competition Law, among other things. 

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory relief along with an award of compensatory, punitive and statutory damages for themselves and all class members. 

Clif Bar agreed to pay $10.5 million in June to resolve claims the company falsely advertised that its product was healthy despite it allegedly containing a sizable amount of sugar. 

Have you purchased Clif Blok Energy Chews? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiffs are represented by Brittany S. Scott and Max S. Roberts of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. 

The Clif Bar class action lawsuit is Uribe, et al. v. Clif Bar & Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-04900, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Whole Foods Market 365 Organic Creamy Caesar Dressing recalled due to undeclared soy, wheat allergens
• Applebees, Chipotle, other restaurants face class action alleging automated voice ordering technology data privacy violations
• Target recall announced for Market Pantry White Fudge Animal Cookies due to potential metal contamination
• Walmart class action over Great Value fudge mint cookies reinstated