"wholesome" not puffery in context, court finds

Levit v. Nature’s Bakery, LLC, 767 F.Supp.3d 955 (N.D. Cal.2025)

Nature’s Bakery Products fig bars claim “Wholesome BakedIn,” “equal parts wholesome and delicious,” “what we bake in is as important aswhat we leave out,” “simple snacks made with real ingredients,” and “the bestfuel for active ... lives.” The packaging also includes a “ ‘heart’ vignettenext to depictions of real, whole fruit, and also displays a ‘Whole GrainsCouncil’ stamp.”

Levit alleged that the products are actually high in sugar,excessive consumption of which is “toxic to the human body.” Of 19 total gramsof sugar, 14 grams are added sugars, representing 28% of the total calories.Levit brought the usualCalifornia statutory claims, as well as common law claims for breach ofexpress warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligentand intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The court found most, but not all, of the challengedstatements to be puffery: “what we bake in is as important as what we leaveout” is an unmeasurable opinion, and, in full context, “Started by father andson bakers, we believe simple snacks made with real ingredients are the bestfuel for active, joyful lives,” was a subjective statement of belief, as wasthe heart vignette in conjunction with the phrase “We ‘Heart’ Figs.” Likewise,though the “Whole Grains Council” stamp was falsifiable, Levit didn’t allege thatit was false.

However, the statements using “wholesome” were potentiallyactionable.

“Wholesome Baked In” and “equal parts wholesome anddelicious” were not phrases like “unbelievably wholesome” or “positivelywholesome,” which converted the term to “exaggerated advertising, blustering,[or] boasting.”

And deception was plausibly alleged where a food labelproclaims a product to be healthy but in fact allegedly contains unhealthfullevels of sugar, despite the disclosures on the Nutrition Facts panel. Therewas no argument that “wholesome” was ambiguous such that a reasonable consumerwould consult the label to determine its meaning. However, fraudulentomission-based claims failed because there needs to be a duty to disclose;although the complaint plausibly alleged that high levels of sugar mean theproducts are not wholesome, it didn’t plausibly allege that eating Nature’sBakery’s fig bars in “customary” amounts would cause death or serious injury,or any other basis for a duty to disclose.