Hostess Class Action: Maple Donuts Don’t Really Contain Maple

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.

A California woman says that Hostess Brands LLC deceptively labels some of its donuts as containing maple ingredients when in fact they do not.

Plaintiff Elizabeth VanCleave says Hostess Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts do not contain any maple, despite language, photographs and graphics on the package that suggest the presence of maple ingredients.

VanCleave’s Hostess class action lawsuit shows a photograph of the donut packaging in question. She points out that the packaging shows an image of what appears to be maple syrup pouring out of a bottle and onto a donut, with the words “Maple Glaze” rendered below. The word “New!” appears on the package superimposed over what appears to be a maple leaf.

But despite the labeling, VanCleave says the Hostess product contains neither maple syrup nor maple sugar. She argues that it is therefore misbranded under both state and federal law.

Consumers reasonably rely on the imagery and statements on the labeling, as well as the product’s name, as indicators that the item contains genuine maple syrup or maple sugar, VanCleave says. She argues that maple syrup and maple sugar are “premium ingredients,” preferable to other sweeteners for their “taste, quality, origin, and other reasons.”

Consumers are willing to pay a premium price for products labeled as containing maple ingredients, she says. “The presence of maple, a premium ingredient, in this product has a material bearing on consumers’ (including Plaintiff and Class Members) decision to purchase,” she claims.

VanCleave says she bought Hostess Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts last April from a Wal-Mart store in California. Based on the imagery and language on the product’s packaging, she reasonably believed the donuts had been made with maple ingredients, she claims.

She relied on those representations when she decided to purchase the donuts, she says. Had she known the product didn’t actually contain maple ingredients, she claims, she either would not have purchased it or would have paid less for it.

This Hostess class action lawsuit raises claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of warranty, and violation of the California False Advertising Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. VanCleave also alleges Hostess violated food labeling standards promulgated under the fedral Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

If certified by the court, VanCleave’s proposed nationwide Class will consist of all persons in the U.S. who purchased Hostess Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts from four years prior to the filing of the lawsuit through the date of Class certification. VanCleave is also proposing a California subclass that would consist of all Class Members who purchased the product in California.

VanCleave seeks an award of damages and payback of all profits Hostess received due to its allegedly unfair business practices, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff’s counsel are David C. Parisi and Susan Havens Beckman of Parisi & Havens LLP; Yitzchak H. Lieberman of Parasmo Lieberman Law; David Pastor of Pastor Law Office LLP; and Preston W. Leonard of Leonard Law Office PC.

The Hostess Donuts False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Elizabeth J. VanCleave v. Hostess Brands LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-0277, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.