New York, NY — Nearly $9 million is being paid out by Breyers Ice Cream in a class action settlement over allegations involving the mislabeling of its vanilla ice cream. The lawsuit claimed that Breyers’ “Natural Vanilla” ice cream was misleadingly advertised as being flavored exclusively by vanilla plants when it actually included flavors derived from non-vanilla sources.
The settlement was announced by the Supreme Court of New York State, Bronx County, on Sept. 13. It addresses claims by consumers who felt deceived by the product’s labeling which suggested a purity of vanilla source not supported by the product’s actual ingredients.
The defendants, Conopco Inc. and Unilever United States Inc., the advertiser and parent company respectively of Breyers, have denied any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, they agreed to establish an $8.85 million fund to compensate customers who purchased the ice cream between April 21, 2016, and Aug. 14, 2024.
Under the terms of the settlement, consumers who can show proof of purchase are entitled to claim $1 for every carton of the implicated Breyers’ Natural Vanilla flavor they bought. Those without receipts can claim for up to eight cartons, potentially receiving $8 per claimant.
This lawsuit is part of a broader scrutiny of food labeling practices, which has seen various food companies taken to court over allegedly misleading descriptions that might imply a product is more natural or wholesome than it truly is. The case underscores the increasing consumer demand for transparency in food labeling—a trend that aligns with growing health-consciousness and awareness of product ingredients.
As part of the settlement agreement, over the next year, Breyers has committed to reformulating the contested product to exclude vanilla flavoring derived from non-vanilla plant sources. This move indicates a shift towards more authentic ingredients in response to consumer expectations.
For those looking to file a claim, the process has been streamlined through a dedicated website set up for the settlement. This effort reflects a growing legal insistence on clearer communication between food producers and consumers.
Legal experts suggest that this case may set a precedent encouraging other food companies to reevaluate their product labeling strategies to avoid similar legal challenges. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in influencing food industry practices and the standards companies set for truth in advertising.
Consumers interested in applying for their part of the settlement can do so by visiting the designated settlement website. This case continues to garner attention as it progresses towards a final resolution, signaling potential implications for future food labeling standards and enforcement.