A consumer, Jessica Cesta, has filed a Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit over the marketing surrounding the company’s Vitamin E Oil product.
Class Action Complaint Filed in Trader Joe’s False Advertising Lawsuit
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising law, and the California Unfair Competition Law, Business, and Professions Code.
The allegations in the Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit state that the defendants market their Vitamin E oil inappropriately because the primary ingredient in the product is actually soybean oil. The product also includes coconut oil and vitamin E oil, but consumers pay a premium price for the liquid because it’s presented as largely vitamin E oil and not a blend.
The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit goes on to explain that soybean oil is problematic because of it can be an allergen and that it is a lower-quality and less healthy oil in comparison with vitamin E. The plaintiff says she purchased this product at a Trader Joe’s store in Los Angeles in 2015.
The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit alleges that the sellers have gone out of their way to promote the vitamin E aspect of the product, using the largest font on the label to advertise this particular element. The lawsuit alleges that Trader Joe’s marketing leads the consumer to believe that the product is made only of or substantially of vitamin E oil.
The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit accuses the company of using customer knowledge about the benefits of vitamin E oil to misleadingly promote the product. Consumers base purchasing decisions on the labels and marketing materials attached to a product, alleges the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in this Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit also says that the labels are intentionally deceptive and misleading to encourage consumers to pay a premium for the product, which she alleges costs around $7.00.
The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit states that all people who purchased the product from Jan. 5, 2014 through the present may be included in the class or a class of all people who purchased it not in California.
False advertising laws serve two purposes — to set the standards for companies to follow when it comes to marketing their products, and to allow customers and the government recourse when a company appears to be in violation of advertising laws.
The plaintiff in the Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit says that not only did she and other consumers pay a higher price for the product because they believed it to be mostly vitamin E oil, but that they have been financially harmed by the company’s behavior.
In many cases of false advertising lawsuits, the company in question may have violated numerous state laws. The company could be held accountable for financial damages for consumers and may also have to update their labeling to more accurately reflect what is inside the product.
If you or someone you know believes you have grounds for a false advertising lawsuit, walk through the basics of your claim with the help of an experienced lawyer at Bradley/Grombacher- fill out the form on this page to learn more.
The Trader Joe’s false advertising lawsuit is Jessica Cesta v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00895, filed in the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles.
Note: Bradley/Grombacher is not representing the plaintiff in this lawsuit.