The snack industry is facing an unprecedented wave of legal challenges, shaking the foundation of brand integrity and consumer trust. Major players like Kellogg Company, PepsiCo, Mondelēz International, Conagra, and Amazon are embroiled in class action lawsuits that could redefine the landscape of packaging, marketing claims, and the boundaries of what brands can assert on their labels.
Billions of dollars in brand equity are at stake, as stricter regulatory scrutiny and consumer expectations push companies to be more transparent than ever. This summer has seen lawsuits ranging from quirky food truck names like L’eggo My Eggroll to allegations that “100% natural” claims are undermined by synthetic ingredients. These legal battles represent a new era where consumer trust is paramount and even the finest details of packaging can ignite a storm of litigation.
For marketers, the stakes have never been higher: brand imitations can easily lead to litigation, while vague promotional claims may invite scrutiny. The new mantra is clear: brands must tread carefully in today’s digitally interconnected marketplace.
You Better L’eggo That Logo
Kellogg’s recent trademark infringement lawsuit against an Ohio food truck, L’eggo My Eggroll, exemplifies the fierce protection brands are willing to deploy. Kellogg argues that the truck’s name, vibrant color scheme, and stylized script infringe upon its well-established Eggo brand, creating a “likelihood of consumer confusion.”
Kellogg had previously sent multiple cease-and-desist letters, all reportedly ignored. The food truck operators allegedly retaliated with threats and demands for compensation. Now, Kellogg is seeking an injunction and damages for brand infringement. This case highlights the lengths to which established brands will go to protect their identity, no matter how small the infringing entity.
Kellogg North America Co. LLC v. Leggo My Eggroll Ohio LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-1154, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Snap, Crackle, Oops
A new class action lawsuit accuses Kellogg of misleading marketing practices, with consumers from New York and North Carolina alleging that promotions for free movie tickets and Crayola vouchers appeared on packaging even after they had expired. Plaintiffs Barbara Seaman and Kyle Corbin claim that they faced difficulty reading the fine print indicating the promotions’ validity.
This highlights a critical responsibility for marketing teams: every promotional campaign must remain valid for products on shelves. Errors can shift consumer perceptions and invite lawsuits, transforming an enticing marketing strategy into a legal misstep.
Barbara Seaman, et al. v. Kellogg Co., Case No. 1:20-cv-05520, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Flamin’ Hot or Just Lukewarm Hype?
Former Frito-Lay executive Richard Montañez is embroiled in a unique lawsuit against PepsiCo, claiming fraud and defamation after a 2023 article questioned his narrative as the “inventor” of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. The case highlights a crucial takeaway for brands and their ambassadors: the importance of documented contributions and verifiable origin stories in the court of public opinion.
Montañez’s story skyrocketed him to fame, but he must now amend his complaint or face dismissal. This underscores the delicate balance between compelling storytelling and legal defensibility, especially in an era of intense scrutiny.
Montañez v. PepsiCo Inc, Case No. 5:24-cv-01792, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
The Double Stuffed Lawsuit
Mondelēz International has launched a lawsuit against Aldi, alleging that the discount chain’s private label cookies are blatant copies of its renowned Oreo brand. The complaint underscores the visual similarities—right down to color scheme and packaging. Such legal actions set the tone for brand protection in an age where visual identity is everything.
The stakes are high for Mondelēz, as the Oreo is one of the most recognizable snacks globally. Aldi’s actions threaten not only brand equity but consumer trust. This case illustrates how crucial it is to maintain a clear line between established brands and imitators.
Mondelēz Global LLC v. Aldi Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-04811, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Naturally Misleading?
Conagra is now facing a lawsuit from plaintiff Julia Gibson, who claims its Orville Redenbacher’s Naturals popcorn misleadingly labels itself as “all-natural” while containing mixed tocopherols, a synthetic preservative. This raises pertinent questions about what constitutes “natural” in food labeling and the legality surrounding it.
The lack of a universally accepted definition for “natural” complicates matters for food manufacturers, as compliance becomes a tightrope walk between marketing and legality. As brands claim purity, they must also prove it, lest they face litigation.
Gibson v. Conagra Brands Inc, Case No. 1:25-cv-02413, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Grains of Concern
In a recent class action filed against Amazon, plaintiffs Ashley Wright and Merriman Blum allege that the e-commerce giant sold Iberia Basmati rice contaminated with toxic substances, including arsenic and lead. The lawsuit claims that Amazon failed to disclose these dangers, violating federal laws and consumer protection statutes.
This case emphasizes the urgent need for stringent testing and transparency surrounding food safety. As the lines blur between retailers and manufacturers, serious responsibility lies with all parties involved.
Wright et al v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00977, in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Bar None?
Finally, in another class action, plaintiffs have accused PepsiCo of misrepresenting the protein content of Gatorade protein bars. This allegation highlights a critical aspect of food marketing—accuracy. As consumers become increasingly health-conscious, even minor discrepancies can lead to major legal repercussions.
The takeaway for brands is crystal clear: ensure that every aspect of marketing, from nutritional claims to promotional offers, aligns with legal regulations to avoid potentially damaging lawsuits.
McCausland et al v. PepsiCo Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04526-PCP, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
