What’s Hiding in Your Graham Crackers?What’s Hiding in Your Graham Crackers?

Over the summer, an anthology of cracker-centered class complaints was lodged in state courts across New York. Various food producers and retailers have been sued for allegedly misrepresenting the whole grain content of their graham crackers.

The plaintiffs complain that these casual snacks used for making s’mores are more refined than consumers are led to believe. According to the complaint, these brands are over-hyping “whole grain” and “graham flour” on their packaging while their crackers are singing a different campfire tune. The plaintiffs think it’s crumby that refined enriched flour plays a key role on the ingredient list of these products marketed as “whole grain.”

The complaints filed in New York courts seek to certify a statewide class of New York consumers who purchased the product. They argue that words like “graham” and “whole grain” on packaging leads shoppers to believe they’re getting a wholesome treat when refined flour is actually doing more of the heavy lifting on the ingredient list.

Some complaints allege that defendants add honey and molasses to their crackers to give them a darker color, making them appear like they were made with whole grains despite the predominant ingredient being refined flour, which is white.

Related:How Will Package Recycling Claims & Labeling Requirements Affect Your Business?

The New York complaints seek relief for violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 because the plaintiffs allegedly paid more for products than they would have if they knew refined flour was the primary flour ingredient.

The cases filed in New York state courts were all filed by none other than Spencer Sheehan, a perpetual source of content for us. Complaints popped up in other jurisdictions, namely Connecticut state court and the Southern District of New York, around the same time that Sheehan went on his flour fakery filing frenzy.

These complaints follow a similar theory as those penned by Mr. Sheehan. However, the complaint in Ransom v. Mondelēz Global sets its sights on a different cracker variety: saltines — perhaps signaling that these allegations may be pointed toward other product lines in the future.

Cases

Lanzi v. Dollar General Co., No. 0518296/2024

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 5, 2024)

Urena v. Wakefern Food Corp., No. 8107031/2024E

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2024)

Mays v. Wegmans Food Markets, No. EFCA2024001880

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 10, 2024)

St. John v. Lidl US LLC, No. 617251/2024

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 16, 2024)

Richardson v. Hannaford Bros. Co.,

No. EF005935-2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 21, 2024)

Williams v. Mondelēz Global LLC, No. 157710/2024

Related:My Paper Trail at Labelexpo Americas 2024

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 2024)

O’Leary v. Family Dollar Stores Inc., No. 68029/2024

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 24, 2024)

Wilson v. Wakefern Food Corp., No. HHD-CV24-6189728

(Conn. Ct. Sup. Aug. 13, 2024)

Ransom v. Mondelēz Global LLC, No. 1:24-cv-06216

(S.D.N.Y. 2024)