Our Work
& It's Impact
Riley, R. (2026). Starbucks Misled Patrons on Coffee Supplier Ethics, Suit Says. Law360.
Class action lawsuit claiming Starbucks misled customers by advertising its coffee as “100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing” despite reports of forced child labor, unsafe working conditions, and other abuses at certified supplier farms in countries including Brazil, China, Guatemala, and Mexico. The suit alleges Starbucks was aware of these issues yet continued to promote its ‘C.A.F.E. Practices program as having zero tolerance for labor violations, allowing the company to charge premium prices. Plaintiffs also allege Starbucks failed to disclose certain chemical compounds in the products.
Top Class Actions (2026).” Starbucks class action alleges coffee not ethically sourced and contains industrial solvents.”
Starbucks class action lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a “proposed class of consumers” under New York and Washington consumer protection statutes, and for common law fraud. Specifically alleging that Starbucks misleads consumers regarding the undisclosed presence of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), in addition to deceptive claims made by the company regarding the ethical sourcing of its coffee products. Such VOCs are widely used in industrial applications (ie. paint strippers, paint removers, and other solvent products), and typically are not associated with food production.
Stutland, D.T. (2025). D.D.C. suit alleging false advertising against ZYN makers remanded to state court. Wolters Kluwer, VitalLaw.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion from Breathe DC, a nonprofit organization, requesting the court remand its suit alleging deceptive and misleading advertising against Swedish Match North America LLC and Philip Morris International Inc., the makers of nicotine pouch brand ZYN. The nonprofit organization sued the tobacco manufacturers in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for false and deceptive advertising related to the ZYN products under the District of Columbia Consumers Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) in a representative action on behalf of the public. The tobacco makers had the suit removed to federal court. The district court agreed with the nonprofit that the suit should be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the tobacco makers could not show diversity jurisdiction or federal enclave jurisdiction, nor does the nonprofit have Article III standing (Breathe DC v. Swedish Match North America LLC, No. 1:24-cv-03208-TJK (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2025)).
Varona, R.A. ( 2025). ‘World’s Purest Baby Wipes’ Not Pure, Microplastics Suit Says. Law360.
Merlo’s lawsuit claims WaterWipes misleads consumers by advertising its baby wipes as pure and plastic-free, even though independent testing allegedly found significant levels of microplastics throughout the product. The Plaintiff argues the company’s marketing deceives environmentally conscious parents and violates consumer protection laws, seeking to represent U.S. purchasers, with a possible California subclass.
Stutland, D.T. (2025). “ADVERTISING - D.C.C.: Suit alleging false advertising against ZYN makers remanded to state court. Law360.
A federal court in Washington, D.C., sent Breathe DC’s lawsuit against Swedish Match and Philip Morris—makers of ZYN nicotine pouches—back to D.C. Superior Court after finding no basis for federal jurisdiction. Breathe DC alleges the companies deceptively market ZYN as “tobacco‑free” despite using tobacco‑derived nicotine, and that they target young consumers with flavored products and misleading implications about legality. The court ruled that diversity jurisdiction was not met because the claims involve separate, individual consumer harms that cannot be aggregated, federal enclave jurisdiction does not apply, and the nonprofit lacks Article III standing in federal court. As a result, the case was remanded to the local court where it was originally filed.
Kang, Y.P. (2025). Chocolate-Makers Can’t Keep Child Labor Suit in Fed. Court. Law360.
A federal judge sent back to D.C. Superior Court a lawsuit accusing Mars, Cargill, and Mondelez of misleading consumers about eliminating child and forced labor from their cocoa supply chains. The companies had tried to keep the case in federal court, but the judge ruled the alleged damages didn’t meet the $75,000 threshold for federal jurisdiction. He rejected the argument that the cost of changing product labels should count in full, finding that under long‑standing “non‑aggregation” rules, those costs must be divided among the entire D.C. public the suit represents. The underlying case, brought by International Rights Advocate under D.C.’s consumer protection law, claims the companies falsely suggested their chocolate was produced without child slave labor, despite widespread labor abuses in West Africa’s cocoa industry.
Jarvis, S. (2025). Saatva Misled Consumers About Mattress Material, Suit Says.
Shoppers have filed a proposed class action claiming Saatva misled consumers by marketing its mattresses as natural, nontoxic, chemical‑free, and eco‑friendly, even though the products allegedly contain polyester, polyurethane foam with carcinogenic additives, and rayon produced with toxic chemicals. The suit argues that consumers relied on Saatva’s sustainability claims because the true materials aren’t apparent from the company’s website or packaging. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide purchasers, along with subclasses in New Jersey and Florida, and assert violations of multiple state consumer protection laws, warranty claims, and unjust enrichment.
Foretek, J. (2025). Nestlé Faces Suit Over Alleged Child Labor In Supply Chain. Law360.
International Rights Advocates has sued Nestlé in D.C. federal court, alleging the company has long known that child labor is widespread in its West African cocoa supply chain while continuing to market a “zero tolerance” policy to consumers. The group claims Nestlé’s child‑labor monitoring system is ineffective or falsified, citing an investigation in Ghana that allegedly found every plantation visited relied heavily on child labor and that farmers had never encountered Nestlé’s monitors. The suit also alleges Nestlé fabricating or misrepresenting remediation records, including photographing children with school supplies and then returning them to work. Brought under D.C.’s consumer protection law, the complaint seeks no damages but aims to stop what the group calls deceptive practices that mislead ethically minded consumers.
Curley, M. (2025). Suit Claims Fume Vapes Mislead with Nicotine Labels. Law360.
A New York woman has filed a proposed class action against Florida-based QR Joy Inc., alleging its Fume vaping products mislead consumers by labeling them as containing 5% nicotine without explaining that this level, due to nicotine salts, exceeds the amount in a combustible cigarette. The suit claims the company markets the vapes as aids for smoking cessation while targeting youth with flavored products, influencer promotions, and inadequate age verification. It also notes the FDA has not authorized Fume vapes. The plaintiff seeks to represent U.S. purchasers, citing violations of consumer protection laws, warranty breaches, and unjust enrichment.
Wood, L. (2024). Hershey’s Organic CHocolate Not ‘Sustainable’, Suit Says. Law360.
An Illinois consumer has filed a proposed class action alleging that Hershey falsely markets its organic and plant‑based chocolate bars as ethically sourced and sustainable. The suit claims Hershey relies on Rainforest Alliance certification to imply its cocoa meets high social and environmental standards, even though the company allegedly knows its supply chain involves deforestation, child labor, and other exploitative practices in West Africa.
The complaint argues that neither Hershey nor Rainforest Alliance can trace their cocoa to genuinely sustainable farms and that the certification process is weak, sometimes relying on self‑reporting. By presenting the cocoa as “sustainable” and “verified,” the suit says, Hershey misleads consumers and charges premium prices. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of nationwide purchasers.
Curley, M. (2022). Sustainable Salmon Suit Survives Aldi’s Dismissal Bid. Law360.
A federal judge has allowed key claims to proceed in a lawsuit alleging Aldi misleads consumers by labeling its Atlantic salmon as “sustainable.” The plaintiff, Jessica Rawson, says she paid a premium based on the packaging but later learned the fish comes from industrial net‑pen farms she argues are environmentally harmful. Judge Jorge Alonso ruled that Rawson plausibly alleged deception, noting that the separate “BAP Certified” label doesn’t clearly explain sustainability to consumers and that the term isn’t mere puffery. Her false‑advertising and warranty claims may move forward, though the judge dismissed unjust‑enrichment and injunctive‑relief claims. Questions about standing for claims under other states’ laws will be addressed at class certification.
McKenzie, V. (2021). Canada Goose Must Face Consumer Suit Over ‘Cruel Fur’. Law360.
A federal judge in New York ruled that Canada Goose must face a proposed class action accusing the company of misleading consumers about the ethics of its coyote-fur sourcing. The suit argues that Canada Goose’s marketing claims about “ethical, responsible, and sustainable sourcing” are deceptive because the company allegedly relies on inhumane trapping methods - including leg traps and neck snares - which are banned in several states.
Judge Victor Marrero found the Plaintiff’s allegations plausible enough to proceed, noting that consumers reasonably associate terms like “ethical” and “sustainably produced” with higher animal-welfare standards. He allowed warranty and consumer protection claims to proceed. The suit argues Canada Goose’s marketing and product tags misrepresent its compliance with humane-trapping standards, while the company maintains its statements are accurate.