Food, Lawsuit of the Day

Lawsuit of the Day: Another Fruity Class Action

frootLoops.jpgWhen we were little, our parents let us eat Lucky Charms, Golden Grahams, and Chocolate Rice Krispies for breakfast. When we wanted to be ‘healthier’, we might eat Froot Loops. Over time, we came to realize that Toucan Sam did not offer any more nutritional value than Lucky the Leprechaun. (Now when we want morning fruit, we add bananas or blueberries to our oatmeal.)
Apparently, there are people in the world who didn’t have the same breakfast epiphany on the way to adulthood. They like to file lawsuits against breakfast companies for false advertising. The latest of these fruity lawsuit hails from San Francisco.
From San Francisco Weekly:

[Roy] Werbel recently filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court alleging that he bought and ate boxes of Froot Loops based on his mistaken belief the cereal contained fruit.
Kellogg’s intentionally deceived consumers into buying Froot Loops by misleadingly using the word “froot” in the title, Werbel alleges. He demands unspecified punitive and actual damages, to be paid to all consumers who have mistakenly bought Froot Loops cereal. Had Werbel known that “Froot Loops contained no fruit, he would not have purchased it,” his suit alleges.

After being misled by Froot Loops, Werbel turned to Cap’n Crunch Crunchberries. To his shock and surprise, they have no real berries. So he filed a second lawsuit against the Cap’n. Apparently, he didn’t hear the crunch of fellow Californians’ identical similar suits getting dismissed earlier this summer.
All of these easily-deceived Californians fail to get points for creativity. The original fruity suit snap-crackle-and-popped way back in 1983. See Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v.General Foods Corp. [PDF]. That one was also filed in the golden state.
This leads us to wonder what’s in the milk in California… besides fake fruit.
‘Froot’ Is Not Fruit, San Francisco Lawsuit Alleges [San Francisco Weekly]
Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch False Advertising Claims Rejected [Martindale]
Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v.General Foods Corp [PDF]

67 comments
(hidden for your protection)

comments sponsored by

Show all comments

Our Sites

  • Above the Law
  • How Appealing
  • ATL Redline
  • Breaking Defense
  • Breaking Energy
  • Breaking Gov
  • Dealbreaker
  • Fashonista
  •