When it comes to lawsuits involving the food world, someone inevitably ends up on the wrong side of a courtroom door. In this roundup of 10 incredibly curious food lawsuits, we’ll travel from ginger‑free soda disputes to footlongs that fell short of the promised length. Some cases were legit class‑actions, while others border on the absurd. Grab a snack and settle in for a legal feast.
10 Incredibly Curious Food Lawsuits Overview
10 The Amount Of Ginger In Canada Dry
Ginger ale has long been touted as a soothing remedy for upset stomachs, thanks to its fizzy bite and the supposed health‑boosting ginger. In 2018, Julie Fletcher spotted a glaring omission: the word “ginger” was nowhere to be found in Canada Dry’s ingredient list. She filed a federal suit alleging that the soda’s label was misleading, insisting that the brand was marketing a ginger‑infused product that was healthier than ordinary colas.
The company countered that ginger was indeed part of the “natural flavor” component, a claim bolstered by a 2011 commercial featuring a ginger farm. Yet lab tests ordered in a related Missouri case showed no detectable ginger, and the defense argued that the absence of detection didn’t prove the flavor wasn’t present. Ultimately, the plaintiff withdrew the suit, leaving the ginger mystery unresolved.
Both lawsuits—one in federal court and the other in Missouri—ended without a decisive ruling on whether Canada Dry actually contains ginger. The cases highlight how a single word on a label can spark a full‑blown legal battle, even when the scientific evidence is murky.
9 Popeyes Sued By Customer After He Choked On Their Food
Most choking incidents happen because someone eats too fast or fails to chew properly. In a twist that sounds straight out of a sitcom, a Mississippi man named Paul Newton Jr. sued Popeyes after he claimed he had to eat a sizable piece of fried chicken with his bare hands because the drive‑through order didn’t include a plastic knife.
Newton’s order consisted of two chicken breasts, red beans and rice, a biscuit, and a soft drink. While the standard accoutrements—napkins, salt and pepper packets, and a spork—were present, the spork was only useful for the beans and rice. Deprived of a proper cutting utensil, he allegedly resorted to using his hands, which he says caused him to choke on a large chunk of chicken. He pursued damages for pain, suffering, and the emergency surgery required to extract the offending piece.
Before the case could go any further, Newton chose to drop the lawsuit, leaving the fast‑food chain unscathed and the incident a cautionary tale about the importance of proper utensils in drive‑through meals.
8 McDonald’s Sued For Millions Over Two Slices Of Cheese
In 2018, two Florida residents launched a $5 million class‑action suit against the golden arches, alleging that customers were being billed up to a dollar extra for cheese slices they never actually received. Leonard Werner discovered the discrepancy when he ordered a Quarter Pounder with Cheese through the app, only to be served a cheese‑less version, despite the menu indicating an extra charge for the cheese.
Werner argued that the app’s “cheese‑less” option was a phantom, potentially affecting as many as 25 million diners. If the court sided with the plaintiffs, each affected customer could be awarded $10 and a complimentary sandwich. McDonald’s, however, dismissed the claim as legally baseless, insisting there was no merit to the alleged overcharges.
7 Fruitless Froot Loops
Back in 2009, Roy Werbel made headlines when he sued Kellogg’s, insisting that the bright, candy‑colored loops were marketed as if they contained real fruit. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice after Werbel failed to properly serve the company with legal papers. Undeterred, he refiled, only to encounter the same procedural hurdles.
Federal judges clarified that the playful spelling “Froot” does not imply genuine fruit content, noting that a “loop” cannot be fruit. This wasn’t an isolated incident; at least four separate actions have challenged Kellogg’s over the same misleading impression, reinforcing that whimsical branding does not equate to nutritional fact.
6 Greek Yogurt That Isn’t Greek Enough
In 2014, two consumers—Barry Stoltz of Scarsdale and Allan Chang of Queens—took legal action against Chobani, claiming the brand’s “Greek” yogurt was neither Greek‑sourced nor nutritionally superior. Their argument highlighted that a single serving contained 16 grams of sugar, matching the sugar load of a Nestlé fudge ice‑cream bar, and that the “0 %” label on the packaging was ambiguous, leading shoppers to believe it signified zero calories or sugar.
Chobani defended itself by stating that “Greek” refers to the style of straining the yogurt, not its geographic origin. The company also noted a prior dismissal of a similar suit in California, underscoring that the branding terminology, while potentially confusing, did not constitute fraud.
5 The ‘Fast Food Made Me Fat!’ Lawsuit
In 2002, 56‑year‑old Caesar Barber filed a class‑action suit against a quartet of fast‑food giants—KFC, McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s—asserting that their menus concealed the true health risks of regular consumption. Barber, a former heavy patron who ate at these establishments four to five times weekly even after surviving a heart attack, claimed the companies failed to disclose crucial ingredient information.
Barber’s attorney argued that the industry bore a duty to warn consumers about the dangers of its fare, alleging that the chain’s practices contributed to Barber’s subsequent heart attacks and a diabetes diagnosis. While the claim resonated with public health advocates, a judge dismissed the case in 2003, marking the first known lawsuit to directly accuse fast‑food chains of knowingly fueling the nation’s obesity epidemic.
4 The ‘There’s Sugar In Jelly Beans?’ Lawsuit
In 2017, California resident Jessica Gomez sued Jelly Belly over its “Sport Beans,” a product marketed as an exercise‑friendly supplement. Although the nutrition facts panel listed sugar content, the ingredient list replaced the word “sugar” with “evaporated cane juice,” a term the plaintiff argued was deliberately vague and designed to mislead health‑conscious consumers.
Gomez claimed the labeling violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Business Practices Law, and False Advertising Law. Jelly Belly dismissed the case as “nonsense,” insisting that any reasonable buyer would notice the sugar amount on the Nutrition Facts. The FDA, however, sided with Gomez, noting that “juice” terminology should be reserved for fruit or vegetable extracts, bolstering the plaintiff’s position.
3 Krispy Kreme’s Falsely Advertised Ingredients
In 2016, Los Angeles resident Jason Saidian sued the doughnut chain, accusing Krispy Kreme of false advertising for its fruit‑filled and maple‑glazed treats. Saidian sought $5 million, arguing that items such as the Chocolate Iced Raspberry Filled, Glazed Raspberry Filled, Maple Bar, and Glazed Blueberry Cake contained no actual raspberries, maple syrup, or blueberries, despite the promotional language suggesting premium fruit ingredients.
The plaintiff felt duped because other Krispy Kreme products, like the Glazed Lemon Filled and Glazed Strawberry Filled, did in fact contain real fruit. The case was voluntarily dismissed in 2017, leaving the company’s marketing practices unchallenged but the controversy lingering among doughnut enthusiasts.
2 The ‘Nutella Isn’t A Health Food?’ Lawsuit
In 2012, Ferrero USA faced a class‑action suit after California mother Athena Hohenberg claimed her four‑year‑old daughter was misled into believing Nutella was a nutritious breakfast spread. The lawsuit alleged that the brand’s advertising suggested health benefits, while the product’s composition—essentially a chocolate‑hazelnut paste—was comparable to a candy bar.
Following a settlement, any U.S. consumer who purchased Nutella between January 2008 and February 2012 could file a claim for up to $4 per jar, with a maximum of $20 per household. The case drew widespread ridicule online, yet Ferrero acknowledged the misleading nature of its marketing and subsequently revised its labels to more accurately reflect the spread’s nutritional profile.
1 Subway’s Footlongs Come Up Short
In 2013, an Australian teenager posted a photo showing his Subway “footlong” measuring just 28 cm (11 in) instead of the advertised 30 cm (12 in). The viral image sparked public outrage and propelled a class‑action suit demanding uniform sandwich lengths. By 2016, Subway settled, promising that its bread rolls would consistently meet the 12‑inch standard.
However, the settlement soon faced criticism from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which argued that the attorneys’ fees—approximately $520,000—outweighed any relief for the class. A judge concurred, noting the settlement offered negligible benefit to consumers and ultimately dismissed it in 2017.
The judge’s reasoning highlighted that most Subway locations already produced breads at or near the promised length, with minor variations due to the natural baking process. Even a sandwich slightly under 12 inches still contained the full portion of meat and cheese, rendering the lawsuit more about perception than substantial loss.