General Mills Agrees to Alter Labels, Ending ‘No Artificial Flavors’ Class Action

General Mills Inc. has agreed to alter the labeling on its fruit-flavored snacks, bringing to an end a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the company of false advertising.

General Mills will place an asterisk or similar reference by the packaging’s “No Artificial Flavors” claim at issue in the class action lawsuit.

Following the asterisk will lead consumers to the statement: “‘*Learn More at [the URL or webpage of the General Mills website (appearing elsewhere on the packaging) containing the disclosure above],’” which will then refer the consumer to ask.GeneralMills.com, according to the settlement.

Also as part of the settlement agreement, General Mills will update its website to disclose that the company specifies flavors in the products involved in the challenged claims come from natural sources, that the company identifies “natural flavors” in the ingredients list as required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the product may additionally contain “synthetic malic acid or other acidulants” not intended for use as a flavor.

The modified language must appear on the website for four years from the compliance date, the settlement says. For two years after the settlement receives final approval, the language must appear in the first two rows of “tiles” on the site or with “similar prominence” if the page format changes.

The plaintiffs in the 2018 class action lawsuit had alleged that General Mills’ fruit snacks were labeled as if they contained only natural ingredients, yet contained artificial flavors.

The class action lawsuit accused General Mills of violating California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of express and implied warranty.

The proposed Class consists of California residents who have purchased the allegedly mislabeled General Mills fruit snacks products in California since Jan. 1, 2012.

The challenged products were fruit-flavored candies themed after characters from television and movie franchises, such as Star Wars, Despicable Me and Hello Kitty. Several entertainment production companies, such as Lucasfilm, Sanrio and Warner Brothers were also named as defendants. 

Lead plaintiff Crystal Hilsley said she had bought the products several times since 2011, believing they were naturally flavored. She said she was deceived by the products’ labeling, which prominently represented that the snacks contained “no artificial flavors.”

“If any artificial flavor is present which ‘simulates, resembles or reinforces’ the characterizing flavor, the food must be prominently labeled as ‘Artificially Flavored’” under California law, according to the class action lawsuit.

Hilsley had alleged that the products’ ingredient lists violated state and federal law by listing “malic acid” instead of the specific industrial chemical “d-l malic acid” actually contained in the General Mills fruit snacks.

It is possible no monetary compensation will be awarded if the Court approves the settlement, as the request for injunctive relief was primary.

The settlement says the plaintiffs’ claims for damages are “incidental” to their primary claims for injunctive relief.

The plaintiff’s and Class claims for restitution were “secondary in that any compensation would have flowed directly out of Defendant’s misrepresentations or omissions,” the settlement says. 

“Here, the Settlement Class Members are receiving a substantial direct benefit from General Mills’ website modification and packaging changes,” the settlement says. “The injunctive relief provided by this settlement has value because it protects the class from further exposure to misleading advertising.”

Indeed, Hilsley’s class action complaint sought an order compelling General Mills to stop packaging and selling the products with the deceptive labels, to relabel or recall all existing products with deceptive packaging and to launch a corrective ad campaign.

She also sought monetary relief in the form of restitution, actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs.

However, the proposed settlement agreement allows Class Counsel to request an award of $725,000 for attorneys’ fees and court costs, subject to Court approval.

In addition, the plaintiffs “may also request incentive awards in the amount of $5,000 each,” the settlement says.

If preliminary approval is granted, the plaintiffs “will fully address the reasonableness of the requested fee and incentive awards,” according to the settlement.

Have you purchased General Mills fruit snacks? Were you surprised to learn they contained artificial flavors? Let us know your experience in the comments.

Top Class Actions will post updates to this class action settlement as they become available. For the latest updates, keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter. You can also receive notifications when this article is updated by using your free Top Class Actions account and clicking the “Follow Article” button at the top of the post.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ronald A. Marron, Michael T. Houchin and Lilach Halperin of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron and David Elliot of the Law Office of David Elliot.

The General Mills Fruit Snacks Class Action Lawsuit is Crystal Hilsley, et al. v. General Mills Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Kraft Class Action Lawsuit Says Cheese Contains Artificial Growth Hormones

Wise Foods Class Action Lawsuit Says Cheddar and Sour Cream Chips Are Artificially Flavored

California Statute of Limitations: Sexual Assault Overview

Call Recording: What’s Required for CIPA Compliance?