Plaintiff Kianna Gardner, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against defendant Ferrara Candy Company on Thursday in the Northern District of Illinois. Gardner raised issue with one of the defendants products, which she believes they misrepresented as “caramel” and “rich & creamy.”
The defendant manufactures and markets hard caramel candy under the Nips brand that is described on the packaging as “rich & creamy.” The plaintiff explains that the representation of the candy as being caramel and “rich & creamy” is misrepresenting to consumers because it causes them to expect “a confection with a non-de minims amount of milk fat,” when the product mostly consists of vegetable fat.
Caramel is typically defined by dictionaries as including cream, a milk fat ingredient that the plaintiff asserts is the most significant ingredient in caramel and is responsible for its texture, body, and flavor, the plaintiff argues. The complaint notes that in an effort to reduce costs, vegetable oils are sometimes substituted for milk fats in caramel production. However, this substitution causes the treat to provide less satiety and “leaves a waxy mouthfeel.” The consumption of vegetable oils has allegedly been linked to health problems including heart disease and increased cholesterol.
The packaging of the product describes the product as “rich & creamy” despite it not containing any milk fat ingredient, like butter or cream, that would elicit that description. Gardner concludes that “it is false, deceptive and misleading to describe a product as “Caramel,” with the prominent terms, “Rich & Creamy,” because consumers will expect it is made with the standard dairy ingredients, based on milkfat.”
She further contends that the defendant was able to sell the product in higher quantities and at higher prices as a result of its misleading branding, which resulted in “additional profits at the expense of consumers.”
The complaint cites violations of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, State Consumer Fraud Acts, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff is seeking class certification for those similarly situated, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary, statutory and punitive damages, litigation fees, and any other relief deemed proper by the court.
The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
