Anne Bucher  |  April 5, 2018

Category: Consumer News

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.

Sunny D class action lawsuitOn Monday, Sunny Delight Beverages Co. and Grenadier LLC were hit with a class action lawsuit alleging Sunny Delight beverages advertised with natural fruit names do not actually contain fruit.

Plaintiffs Michele Hunt and Malika Jones claim the defendants label and advertise Sunny Delight products with natural fruit names and images, including Orange Strawberry, Orange Pineapple, Orange Passionfruit, Strawberry Guava, Watermelon, and other similarly-labeled products. All of these products allegedly include images of natural fruit on the front label.

“All are flavored with artificial flavors to counterfeit the flavors of fruits named and advertised on the labels,” the Sunny Delight class action lawsuit alleges.

Hunt and Jones allege that the packaging, labeling and advertising of Sunny Delight beverages is “intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a healthy, all-natural product instead of a product that is artificially flavored.” They claim the Sunny Delight products are “artificially-flavored sugar-water masquerading as fruit juice” and accuse the defendants of deceptively labeling its products to gain an unfair commercial advantage in the marketplace.

According to the Sunny Delight class action lawsuit, California law requires any product advertised as containing a natural fruit flavor that does not actually contain any of that fruit or fruit juice to have a clear disclosure of this fact on the front label.

The plaintiffs state that the legally-required disclosure informing consumers that the Sunny Delight beverages are artificially flavored and do not contain any juice are “conspicuously absent” from the product labels. They claim that the lack of disclosure causes the Sunny Delight labeling to be false and misleading under California law.

The Sunny Delight class action lawsuit asserts that defendant Sunny Delight manufactures, markets, distributes and sells the drinks throughout the United States. Defendant Grenadier was allegedly the principal advertising agency responsible for labeling and advertising Sunny Delight products during the Class Period.

The artificial flavors are disclosed on the products, the Sunny Delight class action lawsuit alleges, but only in fine print on the rear label. However, the plaintiffs assert California law requires the disclosures to be made on products’ front labels.

Additionally, the Sunny D class action lawsuit claims that California law requires the product label to disclose the presence of flavoring ingredients such as malic acid that create, simulate and reinforce the products’ characterizing flavors.

The Sunny Delight class action lawsuit asserts that the product ingredient list violates both state and federal law by misleadingly identifying the ingredient as generic “malic acid” instead of using the non-generic name of the ingredient as required by food labeling regulations.

The plaintiffs note that there are two types of malic acid: the naturally-occurring l-malic acid and the synthetic industrial dl-malic acid. According to the Sunny D class action lawsuit, Sunny Delight contains the synthetic industrial dl-malic acid and thus the defendants are required by federal law and California law to place a prominent disclosure that the products contained artificial flavorings.

Hunt and Jones say they would not have purchased the products if not for the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions. They filed the Sunny D class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all consumers in California who purchased the allegedly deceptively labeled Sunny Delight products for personal use since Jan. 1, 2012.

Hunt and Jones are represented by Ronald A. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

The Sunny Delight Class Action Lawsuit is Michele Hunt, et al. v. Sunny Delight Beverages Co., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-00557, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: The Sunny Delight Class Action Lawsuit was dismissed on April 9, 2019.  Top Class Actions will let our viewers know if a new case is filed.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

841 thoughts onSunny Delight Class Action Says Drinks Don’t Contain Fruit Juice

  1. George Carrington says:

    No real juice. What are we drinking :( put my name in.

  2. Stewart Frankel says:

    I was also duped into thinking this was ‘fresh’ juice
    It is NOT – and I have had to start using a much more expensive product to get the nutrition Sunny Delight promised in their commercials

  3. Brenda Palmer says:

    Please add my name

  4. Susan Griffiths says:

    Please add me

1 73 74 75

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.