StarKist Tuna Class Action Says ‘Heart-Check Mark’ is Paid Endorsement

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 class action lawsuit claims that StarKist should note that the “heart-check mark” on its product labels is a paid endorsement.

Plaintiff Abraham Jacob Warner states that he purchased a number of StarKist products, including StarKist Low Sodium Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water.

According to Warner, the label on the cans of tuna include a “heart-check mark,” a logo from the American Heart Association advertising the product as heart-healthy.

However, the StarKist class action lawsuit alleges that StarKist doesn’t declare that the “heart-check mark” on the product logo is a paid endorsement from the American Heart Association.

He claims that this action is intentional to cause consumers to prefer StarKist products over comparable products without the “heart-check mark” endorsement, leading consumers to believe that StarKist products are healthier than the other products.

To support his argument, Warner cites advertising material for the American Heart Association itself. Allegedly, the AHA speaks to consumers’ preference for products with a third-party endorsement in encouraging product manufacturers to purchase endorsements for their products from the AHA.

Allegedly, the AHA’s marketing material states that “more than half of shoppers prefer food from a third-party heath organization, such as the American Heart Association’s heart-check mark. The rise of new food icons has created confusion, but ultimately consumers rely on the independent symbol they have come to know and trust.”

The StarKist paid endorsement class action lawsuit claims that StarKist intentionally plays off of consumers’ preference for products with a third party endorsement by including the heart-check mark on the products, but falsely caters to consumers’ preference for independent external endorsement by not disclosing the fact that the endorsement from the AHA is paid.

The StarKist AHA class action lawsuit claims that both federal and state law require that companies disclose when an endorsement from a third party has been paid for.

The StarKist class action lawsuit cites the FDA’s 1993 Final Rule: Food Labeling, General Requirements for Health Claims for Food which states that “the agency recognizes that endorsements made for compensation by private organizations or individuals may be misleading to consumers… A statement should be made in close proximity to the claim, informing consumers that the organization or individual was compensated for the endorsement. Failure to divulge this information on a label that bears a paid endorsement would cause the product to be misbranded…for failure to reveal a fact that is material.”

Allegedly, the FDA explicitly cites AHA endorsements as an example of such a case.

According to Warner, the deceptive labeling is consistent across a range of StarKist products, all of which bear a “heart-check mark,” but none of which declare the mark as a paid endorsement.

Warner goes on to claim that consumers around the country are still being misled by StarKist’s labeling and advertising practices.

The plaintiff is represented by Todd S. Garber and D. Greg Blankinship of Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP.

The StarKist Tuna “Heart-Check Mark” Class Action Lawsuit is Abraham Jacob Warner v. StarKist Co., Case No. 1:18-cv-00406-GLS-ATB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

UPDATE: On March 25, 2019, a New York federal judge determined that StarKist must face a tuna class action lawsuit taking issue with the company’s “heart healthy” claims, but has agreed to throw out some of the allegations.