Godiva Belgium Chocolate Class Action Preserved by Court

Consumer claims that Godiva Belgium chocolate is misleadingly touted as coming from Belgium will proceed, according to a federal judge, who also trimmed the class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiffs, Steve Hesse of New York and Adam Buxbaum of California, alleged that they and other consumers believed Godiva chocolate was made in Belgium because of a statement on the label that said, “Belgium 1926.”

This representation was false, claimed Hesse and Buxbaum, since all of the chocolate made by Godiva Chocolatier Inc. is made in Pennsylvania.

The complaint included a picture of Godiva chocolate packaging, including both the “Belgium 1926” phrase and describing the product inside as “Assorted Belgian Chocolate Caramels.”

The plaintiffs contend that Godiva is using Belgium’s reputation for producing some of the finest chocolate in the world to dupe consumers into thinking their products come from that country.

The Godiva class action lawsuit alleged that the chocolate company violated New York and California consumer protection laws with its Godiva advertising. The plaintiffs also alleged that they and other consumers would not have purchased or paid as much for the chocolates had they known it was not made in Belgium, asserting that the product tastes different because of different butters, creams, and alcohols used in each country.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased Godiva products, as well as a California and New York subclasses.

Godiva responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to state a valid claim. U.S. District Court Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion to dismiss on a number of the class action lawsuit’s false advertising claims, but did agree to trim some claims.

In her order, the judge pointed out an argument made by Godiva claiming that if consumers were duped into thinking the chocolate was made in Belgium based on the “Belgium 1926” representation on the label, they would also think that the chocolate had been made in 1926.

“This argument, however, is too clever by half,” remarked the judge’s order. “A consumer could reasonably believe that Godiva was founded in Belgium in 1926, as Godiva contends, and that the representation on its products of this heritage means that its products continue to be manufactured in that location.”

Judge Nathan retained a number of claims in the class action lawsuit, including violations of New York business laws, state warranty laws, breach of implied warranty, and violation of California consumer protection laws.

According to the order, most of the plaintiffs’ warranty claims were sufficient to proceed with the class action lawsuit. Judge Nathan determined that, at this stage in the litigation, she could not “conclude that no reasonable consumer would rely on and be misled by the Belgium 1926 representation.”

Certain claims were trimmed from the complaint, however, including the plaintiffs’ demand for an injunction requiring Godiva to stop using the allegedly deceptive advertising.

Pointing out that an injunction must be supported by a claim that the threat of injury presents an actual and imminent harm, as opposed to one that is conjectural or hypothetical, the judge dismissed the claim for an injunction.

According to the order, “the injury alleged by plaintiffs in this case is hypothetical — if they choose to purchase Godiva’s products in the future, then they may be harmed…It is difficult to fathom how [the plaintiffs] could be harmed by Godiva’s continued representation if they know that the company’s chocolates come from Pennsylvania. Yet Plaintiffs ask the Court to overlook this flaw by alleging that they remain confused about where Godiva’s chocolates come from.”

The class action lawsuit’s claim that Godiva violated California’s implied warranty law was also trimmed with the finding that the plaintiffs’ had not established “privity” or the right type of relationship between Godiva and consumers as required under that state’s law.

“Plaintiffs also bring claims for common-law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. These claims are all dismissed,” concluded the order.

Are you a fan of Godiva Belgium chocolate? What do you think of the claims in the Godiva chocolate class action lawsuit? Tell us in the comments section below!

The lead plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are represented by Timothy J. Peter and Innessa M. Huot of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The Godiva Belgium Chocolate Class Action Lawsuit is Hesse, et al. v. Godiva Chocolatier Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00972, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Sam’s Club Class Action Alleges Members Forced To Upgrade

How Does Cigna Long Term Disability Work?

Nutro Pet Food is Falsely Advertised As Being Free Of Wheat, Soy, Chicken, Class Action Says

Can You Return a New Car Under Missouri Lemon Law?