Honey Stinger Class Action Says Maple Waffles Are Deceptively Labeled

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 man says a particular flavor of Honey Stinger waffles is falsely advertised because they don’t contain the ingredients the label says they do.

Plaintiff Tomas Johnson says Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles are mislabeled because they do not actually contain maple syrup.

He claims the alleged mislabeling violates several state and federal laws as well as administrative regulations.

In his Honey Stinger class action lawsuit, Johnson includes an image of the front label on the package of Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles.

He describes the label as featuring “a prominent image of a maple leaf and maple syrup splashed on the waffle.” He points out that the words “Organic Maple Waffle” appear “prominently, in large type” on the front of the label.

“Despite this representation, the Product does not contain any maple syrup, and is therefore misbranded under state and federal laws,” he claims.

Johnson alleges that Honey Stinger is able to increase revenues by allegedly mislabeling its waffles as containing maple syrup.

“Maple syrup is believed to have a higher nutritional value than all other common sweeteners,” Johnson claims. He says products that contain maple syrup command a higher price and sell more readily than others do.

The plaintiff says he bought the allegedly mislabeled Honey Stinger waffles several times in 2015 from REI stores in Huntington Beach, Calif. and other locations.

Johnson claims he relied on the waffles’ labeling that told him the product contained maple syrup. He alleges that if he had known these waffles did not actually contain maple syrup, he would not have bought them or would not have paid as much for them.

His Honey Stinger class action lawsuit includes claims for violations of several California consumer protection laws, including the False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law.

The plaintiff also alleges violations of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act  and associated federal regulations.

Johnson seeks to represent a nationwide Class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who bought Honey Stinger Gluten Free Organic Maple Waffles at any time from four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit to the date the court certifies the Class. He also proposes a California subclass, which would include all Class Members who bought their waffles in California.

He seeks an award of damages, including actual and statutory damages, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs with pre- and post-judgment interest. The plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring Honey Stinger to stop representing that the waffles in question contain maple syrup and to conduct a corrective advertising campaign.

Johnson is represented by David C. Parisi and  Suzanne Havens Beckman of Parisi & Havens LLP; Yitzchak H. Lieberman of Parasmo Lieberman Law; Zack Broslavsky and Jonathan A. Weinman of Broslavsky & Weinman LLP; David Pastor of Pastor Law Office LLP; and Preston W. Leonard of Leonard Law Office PC.

The Honey Stinger False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Tomas Johnson v. EN-R-G Foods LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06258, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.