Luden’s class action alleges Wild Cherry lozenges don’t actually contain cherries

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.

Luden’s Wild Cherry lozenges class action overview:

• Who: Plaintiff John Solak sued Luden’s for false advertising.
• What: Solak claims that the brand does not clearly state that it does not use real cherries in the flavoring of its Wild Cherry lozenges.
• Where: The lawsuit was filed in the federal northern district court of New York. 

A lozenge consumer sued Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc., alleging its Luden’s Wild Cherry lozenges don’t contain actual cherries.

The lozenge package is emblazoned with the words “Wild Cherry” with a prominent photo of two cherries and a cherry leaf, according to the Luden’s class action. It is sold for $2.59 for 30 lozenges.

“By describing the lozenges as ‘Wild Cherry’ above two ripe picked cherries, consumers will expect its taste comes from cherry ingredients and lacks artificial cherry flavoring,” the lawsuit states.

However, the ingredients list reveals the absence of cherry ingredients, with the cherry taste coming from “flavor [and] malic acid,” according to the lawsuit.

The Luden’s class action cites studies showing between 60 and 80 percent of consumers try to avoid artificial flavors, believing they have negative health and environmental effects. 

Luden’s class action claims company violates state, federal laws

The lawsuit claims that Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. violates the Consumer Fraud acts that “prohibit the use of unfair or deceptive business practices in the conduct of commerce.” 

The class action also cites the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, a federal law under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission, which covers the issue of false advertising. 

Solak seeks to certify a New York class and a consumer fraud multistate class of all persons who purchased the product in Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia, Arkansas, South Carolina and Utah.

He requests monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages and interest, as well as costs and expenses.

Luden’s is not the only lozenge brand to face legal challenges. Cepacol-brand cough drops, made by RB Health, face a similar lawsuit over allegations the product does not contain honey and lemon as advertised on its packages. 

Have you purchased Luden’s Wild Cherry lozenges? What do you think of the allegations in the case? Let us know in the comments below!

The Luden’s Wild Cherry lozenges class action lawsuit is John Solak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-1357 (BKS/ML), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Ricola class action alleges company falsely advertises botanical benefits of green tea with echinacea throat drops
• Supervalu class action claims lidocaine patches do not adhere for 8 hours as advertised
• Beltone class action claims company hid ‘free’ warranty deductible
• Class action alleges Walgreens, Target, others falsely advertise that products test for ovulation