“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 Salad Dressings Target of New Class Action Lawsuit

Companies that distribute services and products throughout the United States have a responsibility to make sure that their labelling and advertisement of products is accurate and in line with what the product can truly provide. That’s the allegation behind a new Annie’s False advertising lawsuit.

Annie’s False Advertising Lawsuit Targets “Natural” Salad Dressings

General Mills Inc. and Annie’s Homegrown Inc. were hit with a proposed class action lawsuit arguing that they have deceptively marketed their salad dressings with labels stipulating that the products are natural even though synthetic ingredients are included.

An Alabama resident is the lead plaintiff in the case and argued that the products are inappropriately marketed as natural even though they contain xanthan gum, a thickening agent that is a synthetic ingredient. Allegedly the salad dressing bottles included the word ‘natural’ and indicated that there were no synthetic colors, artificial flavors or synthetic preservatives but the plaintiff later learned that the products were not all natural because they contained xanthan gum.

Bacteria are fermented with sucrose, glucose or lactose in order to produce the thickening agent in a commercial manufacturing setting. U.S. regulators, according to the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit, name xanthan gum as a synthetic substance.

The basis of the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit is that the manufacturers misled consumers to believe they were purchasing a non-synthetic and natural product, and that by using a label with the word ‘natural’ on it the product encourages consumers to pay a premium price over other products without really understanding what is inside.

A separate proposed Annie’s false advertising class action lawsuit was filed earlier this month alleging misbranding, false advertising and deceptive marketing regarding their lineup of Organic Fruit Snacks that plaintiffs claim do not contain any strawberries.

What Is False Advertising?

False advertising refers to statements made by the manufacturer that are misleading, untrue, or confusing when it comes to marketing a product.

The purpose behind consumer and advertising laws has been to promote truth in labeling such that consumers know what they are purchasing and can make informed decisions about what products do and do not include or purport to do. In general, false advertising lawsuits can encompass several different types of behaviors, all of which are illegal.

Some examples of false advertising include hidden surcharges or fees, marketing “going out of business” sales for products that were already reduced in price, and labels that do not make it clear what’s inside the product.

If you have recently discovered that a product you purchased does not have an accurate label and that the misleading label enticed you to purchase the item, talking to a lawyer may be your next step. While the Annie’s false advertising lawsuit is just one example, all kinds of products may be named in a false advertising lawsuit.

If you have been the victim of false advertising, you may have grounds to file a lawsuit with the help of an attorney. The lawyers at Bradley/Grombacher are committed to holding companies accountable when false advertising has occurred. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation.


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.