Urbani Class Action Alleges Truffle Oil Doesn’t Contain Real Truffles

Last week, Urbani Truffles USA Inc. was hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the truffle oil maker of false, misleading and deceptive misbranding of its truffle oil products.

In the Urbani truffle oil class action lawsuit, plaintiffs Jay Schiffman and Anthony Williams claim Urbani markets its White Truffle Oil as containing actual white truffles and its Black Truffle Oil as containing black truffles.

“But Urbani Truffle Oil is nothing of the sort,” the Urbani class action lawsuit alleges. Schiffman and Williams claim that Urbani’s truffle oil products are actually flavored with “2,4-dithiapentane,” an industrially-produced perfume.

“Although it emulates the taste and smell of truffles, it is not truffle,” the Urbani class action lawsuit states. 2,4-dithiapentane has been associated with health risks, and is an eye, lung and skin irritant, the plaintiffs claim.

According to the Urbani class action lawsuit, truffles cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per ounce. In comparison, the amount of 2,4-dithiapentane typically used in an eight-ounce bottle of white truffle oil allegedly costs about 40 cents.

Despite the fact the product doesn’t contain real truffles, Urbani Truffle Oil is sold at a 1,275 to 1,400 percent price premium over other oils that do not purport to contain truffle oil, according to the Urbani Truffle Oil class action lawsuit.

Schiffman and Williams allege that Urbani’s misbranding of its truffle oil products is intentional. According to the Urbani class action lawsuit, the Urbani White Truffle Oil label prominently states in all caps, “FINE OLIVE-OIL WITH WHITE TRUFFLES” and the Urbani Black Truffle Oil label states, “OLIVE-OIL INFUSED WITH BLACK TRUFFLES.”

Urbani includes these statements even though it knows that the products contain no truffles, according to the truffle oil class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs claim that the mislabeling renders the products “completely worthless.” They accuse Urbani of intentionally mislabeling the products to entice consumers into paying a significant price premium for the products.

“Plaintiffs and class members have thus been hit with a costly double-whammy: a premium purchase price for a worthless product,” the Urbani truffle oil class action lawsuit says.

Schiffman and Williams assert they would not have purchased the Urbani truffle oil products if they had known that they did not actually contain real truffles. They filed the truffle oil class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a putative Class of consumers in the United States who purchased Urbani Truffle Oil. They also seek to certify subclasses of consumers who purchased the truffle oil in California and in New York.

The Urbani truffle oil class action lawsuit asserts violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, Deceptive Acts or Practices under New York law, New York’s False Advertising law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and fraud.

Schiffman and Williams are represented by Scott A. Bursor, L. Timothy Fisher and Joel D. Smith of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Urbani Truffle Oil Class Action Lawsuit is Jay Schiffman, et al. v. Urbani Truffles USA Inc., Case No. 2:17-at-00470, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.