Junior Mints, Sugar Babies Buyer Seeks Class Cert. in Underfilled 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 plaintiff has requested Class certification in a class action lawsuit against Tootsie Roll alleging that they sell underfilled candy boxes.

Plaintiff Ketrina Gordon asked a California federal court to certify a statewide Class of consumers who purchased opaque boxes of 3.5 oz. Junior Mints and 6 oz. Sugar Babies in California since Feb. 10, 2013.

Gordon states that consumers in the Class are numerous and received the same product with the same amount of empty space, so therefore are bringing similar allegations.

“In the instant resource-intensive, expert-driven case, each consumer’s individual damages would not justify the time and expense of bringing separate actions,” the plaintiff states.

Gordon originally filed the Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit alleging the candy maker underfills boxes of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies. She claims that she purchased the products based on false assumptions gathered from the size of the box.

The 3.5 oz. containers of Junior Mints and 6 oz. containers of Sugar Babies were allegedly misrepresented by their packaging. Gordon claims that Tootsie Roll misrepresented how much candy each box contained through the use of large, cardboard packages. She argues that if Tootsie Roll increased the number of candies in each box or decreased the size of each box, their product would not seem unfairly underfilled.

The candy boxes allegedly contain more than 30 percent empty space. The boxes of Junior Mints reportedly contain 40.7 percent empty space and the boxes of Sugar Babies allegedly contain 33.6 percent empty space. Gordon argues that if consumers knew what the boxes contained, they would not purchase the product.

The Junior Mints, Sugar Babies class action lawsuit claims that consumers often purchase products based entirely on packaging without reading the specifics on labels. Under this argument, buyers of the Junior Mints and Sugar Babies containers purchased the boxes based on the misleading size of the underfilled candy boxes.

The Tootsie Roll class action lawsuit alleges violations of California state consumer laws, including the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The California Unfair Competition Law defines unfair competition as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” The California False Advertising Law defines false advertising as making untrue or misleading claims or statements which induce consumers into purchasing a product or service.

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act is intended to “protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” The Act is a series of statues which protect California consumers by defining consumers, products, and deceptive practices and allows consumers to obtain damages should deceptive practices occur.

Gordon is represented by Ryan Clarkson, Shireen Clarkson, and Bahar Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm PC.

The Junior Mints, Sugar Babies Underfilled Boxes Class Action Lawsuit is Ketrina Gordon v. Tootsie Roll Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-­cv-­02664, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On April 23, 2018,  Tootsie Roll filed a request with a California federal court to toss out a class action lawsuit alleging that boxes of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies contain too much non-functional slack fill, by arguing that most consumers would not be deceived by the candy’s packaging, as plaintiff Ketrina Gordon alleges.