Tootsie Roll Seeks Dismissal of Sugar Babies, Junior Mints Class Action

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.

Tootsie Roll is fighting back at a class action lawsuit claiming the company under-fills its boxes of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies.

This week, Tootsie Roll Inc. filed a request with a California federal court to toss out a class action lawsuit alleging that boxes of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies contain too much non-functional slack fill, by arguing that most consumers would not be deceived by the candy’s packaging, as plaintiff Ketrina Gordon alleges. 

Gordon claims that consumers would be deceived into thinking there is more candy in the box than there is — she says the empty space inside of the box is non-functional and misleads consumers.

Tootsie Roll retorted by saying that the vast majority of people who purchase Junior Mints and Sugar Babies are return customers who know how much candy is in a box, and buy the candy with this knowledge in mind.

Gordon states that she purchased a box of Junior Mints for the first time with the intent of giving them to her boyfriend, and was deceived by the candy’s packaging. Tootsie Roll claims that because she was a first-time customer, Gordon’s experience is not typical of most people who purchase Junior Mints or Sugar Babies.

Thus, the company states that Gordon’s proposed Class of consumers who bought an opaque 3.5-ounce Junior Mints and 6-ounce Sugar Babies packages since Feb. 10, 2013, is not a group that shares common injury or experience. Tootsie Roll notes that this factor is essential for establishing Class certification in a class action lawsuit.

Further supporting the argument that Gordon has not sufficiently established common experience among proposed Class Members, Tootsie Roll claims that consumers purchase the candy in a variety of ways, leading them to depend unequally on the candy’s packaging.

For example, Tootsie Roll states that some consumers buy the candy after taking it off of shelves and holding the packaging, while others order it online, and still others select it from behind a movie theater counter, without touching the packaging.

Gordon’s Junior Mints slack-fill class action lawsuit makes a claim for injunctive relief. Tootsie Roll states that because she now knows the nature of the candy’s packaging, Gordon will not be deceived by the packaging if she chooses to purchase the candy again.

The company also states that Gordon’s story shows that she was not injured by the candy’s packaging, as she purchased the candy because of her boyfriend’s preference for Junior Mint candy, not because the packaging had a certain appearance.

Gordon claims that Junior Mints boxes contain about 40 percent non-functional slack-fill, and Sugar Babies contain about 33.6 percent non-functional slack-fill.

The Junior Mints, Sugar Babies deceptive packaging class action lawsuit argues that most shoppers make decisions on what candy to buy based on the candy’s packaging, often without reading the label. So, the Tootsie Roll slack-fill class action lawsuit claims that Tootsie Roll intentionally misleads consumers by incorporating non-functional slack-fill into its Junior Mints and Sugar Babies packaging.

Gordon is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson and Bahar Sodaify of Clarkson Law Firm PC.

The Junior Mints, Sugar Babies Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is Ketrina Gordon v. Tootsie Roll Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02664, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.