Silk Almond Milk Class Action Challenges Nutritional Claims

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 Silk almond milk is falsely advertised as being nutritionally comparable to dairy milk.

Plaintiff Melanie Kelley says that defendant WWF Operating Company, doing business as WhiteWave Services Inc., falsely advertises its Silk brand almond milk as being nutritionally equivalent, or even nutritionally superior, to traditional dairy milk.

Kelley argues that the defendant’s Silk almond milk “significantly lack[s] many of the essential nutrients and vitamins provided in dairy milk.” WhiteWave not only fails to disclose this fact but also actively conceals it from consumers, she claims.

Her Silk almond milk class action lawsuit shows a side-by-side comparison of the nutritional contents of skim dairy milk and Silk almond milk. According to these numbers, skim milk offers a markedly higher concentration of 10 vitamins and minerals, plus protein.

She compares those figures to representations from WhiteWave’s promotional website for Silk almond milk. The website promotes Silk as a substitute for dairy milk, specifically saying it offers 45 percent of the USDA’s daily value of calcium compared to skim dairy milk’s 30 percent.

Even using the word “milk” in the product’s name is a misrepresentation, Kelley claims. By calling its product “milk,” she says, the defendant capitalizes on dairy milk’s reputation for providing certain nutritional content without actually providing that content in its own product.

Instead, Kelley argues that under applicable FDA regulations, Silk almond milk should be labeled with the word “imitation.” She cites FDA guidance that says a new food should be labeled “imitation” if it resembles a traditional food and is intended to substitute for that food but is nutritionally inferior to that food.

Kelley says she relied on these allegedly false representations in making her own purchases of Silk almond milk. Had she known otherwise, Kelley says, she would have paid less for the product or would not have bought it at all.

In a separate legal action, Kelley’s legal team is raising similar claims over Blue Diamond Almond Breeze. The plaintiff in that action challenges Blue Diamond’s representations about the nutritional content of Almond Breeze, representations she says create a false impression that the product is comparable to dairy milk.

Kelley proposes to represent a plaintiff Class that would encompass all persons in the U.S. who purchased a Silk almond milk product within the four years preceding the filing of this action. She is also proposing a subclass for California Class Members.

She seeks injunctive relief that would require the defendant to cease its allegedly false advertising and to amend the labeling for Silk almond milk to better disclose its ingredients and nutritional content – or, in the alternative, to add nutrients to the product in amounts equal to or greater than those present in dairy milk.

She also seeks an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.

Kelley is represented by attorneys Lee A. Cirsch, Robert K. Friedl and Trisha K. Monesi of Capstone Law APC.

The Silk Almond Milk Class Action Lawsuit is Melanie Kelley v. WWF Operating Co., Case No. 1:17-cv-00117, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

UPDATE: On March 22, 2017, the maker of Silk Almond milk fought back against this class action lawsuit arguing that the claims against the product are nothing more than “an attack on the entire plant-based beverage industry.”