Kellogg’s Cereal Sugar Content Class Action Lawsuit Gets Certified

UPDATE: On Oct. 21, 2019, Kellogg’s agreed to pay $20 million to resolve claims that they falsely advertised their sugar-filled cereals as healthy.

UPDATE 2: On Feb. 20, 2020, a California federal judge rejected a proposed $31.5 million sugar content class action settlement struck between Kellogg’s and consumers, that would have ended claims that the company falsely advertised some of its products as healthy despite their high sugar content.

UPDATE 3: On July 20, 2020, consumers asked a judge to approve a revised version of a $20 million Kellogg’s cereal class action settlement.

Three Classes of consumers were recently certified in a California federal court, allowing plaintiffs to move forward with a class action lawsuit claiming that Kellogg falsely advertises their cereals as healthy regardless of the high sugar content.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh certified three Classes in a Kellogg class action lawsuit which alleges that the company falsely advertises their Raisin Bran, Frosted Mini-Wheats, and Smart Start cereals as healthy when they have high amounts of added sugar.

Although Judge Koh approved the three Classes, each concerning one of the aforementioned products, she refused to certify a fourth Class of consumers bringing claims about Nutri-Grain soft-baked breakfast bars.

“The court concludes that, contrary to Kellogg’s view, plaintiff properly defined the subclasses narrowly in order to avoid the individualized issues that would have otherwise arisen from the variations in the packaging for Raisin Bran, Nutri­Grain and Smart Start during the class period,” Judge Koh wrote in her certification motion.

The Kellogg class action was originally filed in 2016 by lead plaintiff Stephen Hadley. Hadley claimed that Kellogg falsely portrays their cereals as healthy when they are loaded with 16 grams of added sugar. In his Kellogg class action, Hadley pointed to phrases on the products’ packaging including “nutritious,” “essential nutrients,” and “wholesome.”

In August 2017, Judge Koh largely denied Kellogg’s motion for dismissal but trimmed some claims in regards to “puffery” language found on packaging. This language includes phrases like “unbelievably nutritious” and “positively nutritious” which are common exaggerations found in marketing that are not legally actionable. However, the majority of Hadley’s claims were allowed to proceed.

In response to Hadley’s request for Class certification, Kellogg made various arguments in an attempt to invalidate the proposed Classes. Primarily, the company argued that the Classes were not viable because Hadley could not show Class-wide damages or prove that every individual Class Member relied on the same representations when making their purchase. Although Judge Koh agreed with this reasoning in respect to the Nutri-Grain Class, she denied the argument with respect to the other three Classes.

Kellogg also sought to invalidate the testimony for Hadley’s damages expert Steven P. Gaskin, claiming that Gaskin’s analysis only measures theoretical willingness to pay for the products under different labeling.

Judge Koh denied this argument, finding that Gaskin’s theory accounts for “supply-side factors” and does not only focus on a consumer’s potential willingness to pay. She also added that Kellogg’s arguments are not drastic enough to dub Gaskin’s theory “junk science.”

However, Judge Koh did side with Kellogg on select issues. For example, she found that Hadley had not sufficiently put forward a viable damages theory in regards to his claims that Kellogg intentionally and deceptively leaves out information regarding their products’ added sugar.

Plaintiffs represented by Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M. Flynn and Melanie Persinger of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC.

The Kellogg Cereal Sugar Content Class Action Lawsuit is Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., Case No. 5:16­-cv­-04955, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.