Kraft Heinz to settle MiO false advertising lawsuit

Update:

• Kraft Heinz has agreed to a settlement in principle that ends claims the company falsely advertised its MiO brand drink mixes as containing only natural flavors. 
• Details of the settlement have not been disclosed. 
• Kraft Heinz was accused of misleading consumers by allegedly advertising the MiO drink mixes don’t contain any artificial flavoring. 
• The consumer behind the complaint argued the MiO drink mixes contain malic acid, which they say is an “artificial petrochemical.” 
• Kraft Heinz initially attempted to get the complaint dismissed, arguing the lawsuit did not sufficiently show malic acid is an artificial-flavoring agent.

MiO lawsuit overview: 

• Who: MiO water enhancer consumers are asking a judge to certify a class action lawsuit against manufacturer The Kraft Heinz Co.
• Why: The plaintiffs say the company falsely labels MiO as containing only natural flavors.
• Where: The MiO lawsuit was filed in a Florida federal court.

(Aug. 25, 2023)

Consumers in a lawsuit alleging The Kraft Heinz Co. falsely labels its MiO water enhancer as containing only natural flavors have asked a judge to grant class action status to shoppers in five states.

Plaintiff Sandra Adams’ motion in support of class certification was filed Aug. 16 in a Florida federal court. 

Adams alleges she and other consumers were deceived by Kraft’s labeling, “Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavor,” seen on its MiO brand of water enhancers.

According to the lawsuit, Kraft claims the flavors in its MiO brand Tropical Cherry and Berry Pomegranate water enhancers come only from natural sources when, in fact, an artificial and synthetic flavoring ingredient known as malic acid contributes to much of the product’s flavor profile, Adams alleges.

“In this case, there are common questions of law and fact for the proposed class, such as whether ‘Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavor’ used by defendant in the marketing and sale of its water enhancers was false, unfair, deceptive and/or misleading to them,” the motion states.

Plaintiff seeks certification of class of shoppers across 5 states

Adams has asked U.S. District Judge Gregory A. Presnell to certify a proposed class of shoppers in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia who were allegedly deceived by the product’s label. 

The motion comes after Judge Presnell denied Kraft’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in January.

Kraft argued in November that Adams’ suit doesn’t plausibly allege the MiO’s malic acid acts as a “flavor” or is “artificial.” However, Judge Presnell disagreed with Kraft’s argument that no reasonable consumer would think the beverage concentrate doesn’t have artificial ingredients.

The lawsuit follows a similar class action filed against Kraft in 2021, which also alleged the company falsely advertises that its MiO brand flavored water enhancers contain only natural flavors. 

What do you think of the allegations against Kraft in this case? Let us know in the comments. 

Adams is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC and William Wright of The Wright Law Office PA.

The Kraft MiO lawsuit is Sandra Adams v. The Kraft Heinz Co., Case No. 5:22-cv-00290, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Target class action alleges Market Pantry berry pomegranate water enhancer falsely advertised as all-natural
• Real Kosher hit with class action following ice cream recall
• Trader Joe’s recalls products over potential rock and insect contamination, burn risk
• Splenda files lawsuit against scientist, alleging false cancer-causing claims