Forbes v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company

On January 2, 2023, Eboni Forbes (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., filed a class action personal property fraud lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“Defendant”), seeking damages with interest for alleged misrepresentation of the product. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Kraft Heinz Foods Company (‘Defendant’) manufactures, markets, and sells apple juice with ‘All Natural Ingredients’ and ‘No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives’ under the Capri-Sun brand (‘Product’).”

The plaintiff then alleged, “The statement of ‘No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives’ is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains citric acid, an artificial ingredient which serves multiple preservative functions.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Consumers are misled because the label states, ‘No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives,’ even though the Product contains citric acid, an artificial ingredient which fulfills numerous preservative functions.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Instead of identifying citric acid’s function as a preservative or any of the other examples provided, Defendant’s parenthetical declaration that it is used ‘FOR TARTNESS’ is misleading and contrary to law.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged that “while the relevant regulation allows the description of a preservative to reference its effect on flavor, a consumer who even views the ingredient list will not know that the ‘tartness’ is provided to maintain and restore the Product’s taste. They will just think the citric acid impacts the Product’s flavor, which is true, but also misleading because it fails to disclose it requires this ingredient to maintain, preserve and protect its flavor from deteriorating. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, $4.99 for ten six-ounce pouches, excluding tax and sales.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant intended that members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class would rely upon its deceptive conduct, which they did, suffering damages.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “The Product was manufactured, identified, marketed, and sold by Defendant and expressly and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff that it would not contain artificial preservative ingredients.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Defendant knew the product attributes that potential customers like Plaintiff were seeking and developed its marketing and labeling to directly meet their needs and desires, which was the avoidance of artificial additives like chemical preservatives.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Plaintiff provided or provides notice to Defendant, its agents, representatives, retailers, and their employees that it breached the Product’s warranties. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to complaints by consumers and third-parties, including regulators and competitors, to its main offices and through online forums.”

Plaintiff presented five claims for relief, including alleged violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349 and 350; violation of the State Consumer Fraud Acts; breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; fraud; and unjust enrichment.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award of monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages together with interest and costs of litigation. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.