Clif Bars Contain Too Much Sugar, Class Action Says

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 Clif Kid ZBars and “Classic” Clif Bars contain too much sugar and advertising them as nutrition bars constitutes a deceitful marketing practice.

Plaintiffs Ralph Milan, Sarah Aquino, and Elizabeth Arnold claim that Clif fraudulently markets its Clif bars as “nutrition bars,” concealing the fact that they contain a significant amount of sugar, in an attempt to cater to consumers’ preference for health foods.

The plaintiffs start their argument by outlining the sugar content of Clif products, stating that 37 percent of the calories in Clif’s Kid ZBars and “Classic” Clif Bars come from added sugar.

According to the Clif Bar class action lawsuit, the bars are marketed specifically as “nutrition bars,” with labels, packaging, and advertisement that “convey a health and wellness message with the goal of increasing the price and sales of its high-sugar ‘nutrition bars.'”

The Clif Kid ZBars sugar content class action lawsuit goes on to argue that the company markets the bars as nutrition bars with the “goal of increasing the price and sales of its high-sugar bars.”

The sugary nutrition bar class action lawsuit develops this claim by arguing that Clif’s marketing caters to consumers’ preference for health-friendly foods over foods high in sugar or those perceived as unhealthy.

Milan and others say that Clif’s adverting claims are deceptive because they are “incompatible with the dangers of the excessive sugar consumption to which the [Clif bars] contribute.” The plaintiffs then go on to cite various health risks associated with consuming too much sugar, including the development of diabetes and heart problems, high cholesterol, and increased blood sugar levels.

They state that fructose, the type of sugar allegedly found in Clif bars, is harder on the body than other forms of sugar like glucose, because of the way in which the human body metabolizes it. They conclude that this fact means that Clif’s inclusion not only of a large amount of sugar, but a large amount of fructose, specifically, renders Clif bars unhealthy.

The consumers note that since the 1960s, Americans’ consumption of processed sugar has increased. They state that this increase in sugar intake was brought on by the increased use of fructose, a sugar made from extracting starch from corn.

The consumers note that since the introduction of fructose into many processed foods, there has been a notable rise in Americans’ sugar consumption. They cite that the American Heart Association determined that added sugars available for consumption on the market increased by an average of 76 consumed calories per day between 1970 and 2005. 

Despite this rise in sugar intake, the consumers state that the dangers of a high sugar intake have long been concealed from the American public, because health-conscious messaging since the mid-century long focused on the dangers of consuming excessive fats, ignoring the impact of sugar on health.

The Clif Bar false advertising class action lawsuit states that now that consciousness has been raised about the dangers of sugar, consumers increasingly make purchasing choices based on a desire to avoid sugar.

The Clif Bar sugar content class action lawsuit claims that consumers purchase the bars specifically because they are marketed as “healthy,” so their sugar content reduces the value many consumers sought to gain by buying them.

Milan, Aquino, and Arnold are represented by Paul K. Joseph of The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph PC; Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M. Flynn, and Melanie Persinger of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC.

The Clif Bar Sugar Content Class Action Lawsuit is Ralph Milan, et al. v. Clif Bar & Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-02354, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.