Odwalla Consumer Seeks Class Cert. in ‘No Added Sugar’ Lawsuit

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 consumer is seeking Class certification for a lawsuit alleging that Odwalla Inc.’s “no added sugar” label on its fruit juice is misleading.

Plaintiff Stephen Wilson says that Odwalla’s claim that their orange juice contains “no added sugar” misleads consumers.

He seeks certification for three separate Classes of consumers who bought different sizes of Odwalla’s orange juice with comparable labeling.

The Odwalla “no added sugar” class action lawsuit was first field in California state court in March 2017. It was removed to federal court in April 2017.

Wilson argues that a product like Odwalla’s orange juice would not normally have added sugar, so the label is unnecessary and functions only to confuse consumers and drum up a misguided preference for Odwalla’s orange juice over other comparable orange juices.

He claims that Odwalla aimed to take advantage of consumers’ growing preference for sugar free foods that has arisen in response to America’s obesity epidemic. He states that consumers consciously choose foods with “no sugar added” labels over foods without such labels, in an attempt to make a health-conscious choice.

The Odwalla falsely labeled orange juice class action lawsuit alleges that Odwalla’s use of the term “no sugar added” violates California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Sherman Law, False Advertising Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

He seeks Class certification for consumers who bought 15.2-ounce containers of Odwalla’s orange juice in California during or after June 2016, for consumers who bought 59-ounce bottles of the orange juice in California during or after April 2015, and for consumers who bought 128- ounce bottles of Odwalla orange juice in California during or after September 2016. He seeks separate Class certifications for each group of consumers.

The Odwalla false advertising class action lawsuit notes that between March 2016 and March 2017, Odwalla sold $3.8 million worth of juice in California, and claims that this amount of commerce implies that potential Class Members who purchased juice in California are sufficiently numerous to qualify for Class certification.

Wilson claims that Class certification is appropriate because the Odwalla orange juice consumers share an experience “of such a nature that…is capable of classified resolution — which means that the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each of the claims in one stroke.” He argues that this applies because the labeling on all three sizes of Odwalla orange juice was functionally the same and featured the same deception.

The court determined that there are questions about Wilson’s claim that should be resolved in court, including whether or not the proposed Class Members were injured by Odwalla’s orange juice labeling, whether or not the labeling would mislead a reasonable consumer, and whether the putative Class Members are entitled to restitution or damages.

Wilson is represented by Robert K. Friedl, Trisha K. Monesi, and Bevin Pike of Capstone Law APC.

The Odwalla “No Sugar Added” Juice Label Class Action Lawsuit is Stephen Wilson v. Odwalla Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02763, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.