“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit Filed in California Federal Court

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in a California federal court says that food company Annie’s Inc. falsely advertises, deceptively markets, and misbrands its products in order to encourage consumers to make a purchase.

The Annie’s false advertising lawsuit centers around Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks which apparently do not contain strawberries as an ingredient in the fruit snacks.

Lead plaintiff Raymond Alvandi states that he relied on the marketing of Annie when purchasing the snacks, and had he known that they didn’t actually contain strawberries, he would not have purchased the product.

“Defendant’s product is called ‘Fruit Snacks’ and ‘Summer Strawberry’ and defendant labels and markets its strawberry fruit snacks as containing ‘natural strawberry flavors’ and touts that they are ‘Made with Goodness!’” the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit states. “However, defendant’s strawberry fruit snacks do not contain any strawberries.”

Owned by General Mills, Annie’s has taken part in a marketing campaign that has been deceptively designed to dupe consumers by having them believe that the Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks are healthy and nutritious and actually contain strawberries based on the product labeling and consumer marketing, Alvandi alleged in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit.

Alvandi stated that he purchased the strawberry fruit snacks a number of times, including from Amazon and from a Glendale, California Target store, among other locations. He states that prior to purchasing the snacks, he relied on the marketing and product label that suggested to him and other consumers that the strawberry fruit snacks were made with actual strawberries.

It wasn’t until later that Alvandi discovered that the ingredients in the Annie’s Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks which are listed as tapioca syrup, pear juice from concentrate, cane sugar, sunflower oil, and caranuba wax. Strawberries are not listed as an ingredient in the fruit snacks.

“’Strawberries’ are nowhere to be found in the nutrition facts. Indeed, the nutrition facts do not even list a strawberry byproduct such as strawberry juice made from concentrate,” the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit states.

The plaintiff states that claiming fruit snacks actually contain fruit when they don’t is a common practice among companies, and this has been discussed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alvandi states.

Alvandi quotes commentary from the organization in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit which states, “Unfortunately for parents and kids, phony fruit snacks don’t always contain the fruits advertised on the front of the box and never in the quantities suggested. Instead, companies use relatively cheap, nutritionally void and highly processed pear, apple, and white grape juices, making phony fruit snacks much closer to gummy bears than actual fruit.”

The proposed Class of consumers in the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit includes all U.S. residents who purchased Summer Strawberry Organic Bunny Fruit Snacks during the six-year class period.

On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Avandi has raised allegations of breach of express warranty, unfair and deceptive acts and practices violating the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Business and Professions Code. He is seeking injunctive relief in order to prohibit the allegedly false and deceptive advertising as well as compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages.

The Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit is Alvandi v. Annie’s Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05691, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

If you believe you were the victim of a false advertising scheme, legal help is available. Contact the experienced consumer rights attorneys at Bradley/Grombacher today for a FREE case evaluation. 

Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit.

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Buffington v. HDMC $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.