The dismissal of a class-action lawsuit against Quaker Oats by a federal judge has reignited discussions about the responsibilities of food producers in aligning their branding with consumer expectations.
On 2 December, US District Judge Edmond E. Chang ruled that claims against the PepsiCo subsidiary were “unreasonable and fanciful”.
The lawsuit alleged the company misled consumers with its Simply Granola branding, which plaintiffs argued suggested the product contained only oats, honey, raisins and almonds. In reality, the granola also includes ingredients such as wheat, sugar, inulin and vegetable oils – additives the plaintiffs claimed were incompatible with the branding.
The role of inulin and vegetable oil in granola
Inulin is a natural prebiotic fibre that promotes gut health by feeding beneficial bacteria, while enhancing texture and adding mild sweetness with fewer calories than sugar. It also acts as a binding agent, helping granola clusters stick together.
Vegetable oil, on the other hand, is used to bind ingredients, enhance crunchiness and add subtle flavour. It ensures even browning during baking and extends shelf life by keeping granola fresh longer.
The power of consumer perception
At the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument was the claim that the word ‘simply’, which – paired with the front-label imagery and highlighted ingredients – gave the impression of a clean product. The lawsuit contended this perception misled consumers into paying a premium price for what they believed was a healthier granola. Judge Chang’s ruling, however, noted that granola does not have a “designated and agreed-upon ingredient list,” making the plaintiffs’ expectations unreasonable.
The case reflects a broader consumer trend toward clean label products. Shoppers are increasingly seeking minimally processed foods with transparent ingredient lists and any deviation from perceived simplicity can spark backlash.
In the Quaker Oats case, plaintiffs Donna Campobasso, Anthony Civitano and Alfonzo Farfan cited numerous complaints from online platforms, including Amazon, where buyers expressed disappointment upon discovering the product contained more ingredients than anticipated. In today’s social media-driven marketplace, even small discrepancies between marketing claims and product realities can snowball into significant reputational challenges.
What can producers learn from this lawsuit?
The lawsuit underscores the importance of aligning branding with the realities of food production. Words like ‘simply’, ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ carry weight with consumers and can create trust – or mistrust – depending on how they align with ingredient lists. Producers should take care to substantiate such claims or risk eroding consumer confidence.
Transparency is critical in building and maintaining trust. While Quaker Oats clearly listed all ingredients on the product’s back label, the emphasis on select ingredients on the front label led to confusion. Including a qualifying statement – such as containing additional ingredients for flavour and freshness – could have tempered expectations and avoided misunderstandings.
The willingness of consumers to hold brands accountable is a growing trend. Plaintiffs in the case argued they paid more for Simply Granola because they believed it contained only the highlighted ingredients. With clean eating gaining popularity, brands face rising pressure to meet these expectations with authenticity. Failing to do so, even unintentionally, can result in reputational harm.
This case is not Quaker Oats’ first brush with legal challenges over product labelling. Earlier this year, the company faced another lawsuit alleging its granola bar ‘no artifical preservative’ claim was false. In 2019, it also faced a class action lawsuit accusing it of falsely advertising the health benefit statements made on its cereal and granola bars packaging.
The Mondelēz lawsuit over its Cocoa Life logo – much like the Simply Granola case – highlights the growing disconnect between consumer perception and product reality. Filed under Illinois consumer protection laws in September, the Mondelēz case accuses the company of misleading consumers with claims of ethical and sustainable cocoa sourcing, citing allegations of child labour and environmental harm in West Africa.
The lawsuits underscore how branding that emphasises simplicity or sustainability can create consumer expectations that, when unmet, lead to dissatisfaction and legal scrutiny. In an era where transparency is paramount, these cases reveal the risks brands face when consumer perception diverges from the realities of production.
Quaker Oats’ dominance
Quaker Oats holds a significant position in the global granola market, posting revenue of $3.8b in 2023. The company’s dominance is rooted in its ability to tap into trends like high-protein and fibre-rich snacks.
Simply Granola, for example, contains 7g of protein and 7g of fibre per 64g serving, along with 42g of whole grains, 260 calories and a host of micronutrients such as calcium, iron, potassium and magnesium. These attributes align with consumer demands for functional foods, however, to maintain this leadership will require careful attention to evolving consumer expectations.
The Simply Granola case may have been dismissed in court, but it has sparked a larger conversation about the responsibilities of food producers in today’s marketplace. Despite its strong market presence, Quaker has faced a 4.36% decline in social media conversations about its products over the past year, according to Tastewise’s 2024 trend analysis.
Trust, once earned, can be a powerful competitive advantage and transparency remains the cornerstone of that trust.
Class action lawsuits:
The Simply Granola class action lawsuit is Donna Campobasso, et al. v. The Quaker Oats Co., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06043, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The Mondelez class action lawsuit is Tim Gollogly v. Mondelez International Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07368, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
