JonnyPops false advertising class action moves forward over ‘100% real fruit’ claims

JonnyPops class action overview:

• Who: A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a false advertising lawsuit against JonnyPops.
• Why: The judge ruled plaintiff GoodPop sufficiently alleged that JonnyPops made misleading statements about the amount of “real fruit” in its popsicles.
• Where: The JonnyPops class action lawsuit was filed in Texas federal court.

A federal judge in Texas has denied a motion to dismiss a false advertising lawsuit against JonnyPops, ruling that plaintiff GoodPop sufficiently alleged that the company made misleading statements about its products.

GoodPop filed the JonnyPops class action lawsuit in June 2024, alleging that the company uses misleading advertising to market its frozen treats as healthy. However, JonnyPops moved to dismiss the complaint in September 2024, arguing that GoodPop failed to state a claim.

In a March 13 order, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman disagreed with JonnyPops’ arguments, finding that GoodPop’s allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

GoodPop claims JonnyPops misleads consumers with fruit images

GoodPop alleges that JonnyPops’ packaging features images of fruits that are not actually present in the products. For example, the packaging for JonnyPops’ “Fruit Stacks” displays lemons, limes and grapes, but the products do not contain any of those fruits, the JonnyPops class action states.

GoodPop argues that JonnyPops’ treats are made primarily of sugar and water despite claims that they are made with “simple ingredients” and have the “wholesome nutrition of a fruit bar.”

JonnyPops claimed in its motion to dismiss that the images of fruits on its packaging are not misleading when viewed in the context of the entire package, which includes an ingredients list. It also argued that the fruit images and claims of “simple ingredients” are non-actionable puffery.

Judge Pitman rejected the arguments, finding that GoodPop’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim for false advertising. 

He noted that other courts have found that an ingredients list on the back of a product does not eliminate the possibility that reasonable consumers may be misled by images on the front of the package.

The court also found that GoodPop’s allegations were sufficient to support its claim that JonnyPops’ advertising deceived or had the capacity to deceive a substantial segment of consumers. 

GoodPop alleged that nearly half of respondents to a survey believed that JonnyPops’ pops are made primarily out of fruit, while the main ingredients are sugar and water.

The judge also denied JonnyPops’ motion to dismiss GoodPop’s claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, finding that GoodPop had sufficiently alleged that JonnyPops’ misleading statements were made in California.

In 2022, a California resident filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona Beverages and its owner Hornell Brewing Co. for intentionally misleading customers into thinking the companies’ fruit snack products are largely made with fruit when they are not.

Have you purchased JonnyPops’ frozen treats? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Gary S. Feinerman, Steven N. Feldman and Jeffrey G. Homrig of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The JonnyPops class action lawsuit is Austin’s Natural Frozen Pops Inc. v. Jonny Pops LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00716-RP, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Class action lawsuit claims LensCrafters uses fake discounts on prescription lenses
• Frito-Lay recalls Tostitos chips over undeclared allergen
• Ford recalls over 56,000 vehicles due to rearview camera issues
• Class action says kid-friendly Coin Master game involves illegal gambling