Parents sue Sprout Foods over poor baby food branding


Gillian and Samuel Davidson have filed a lawsuit against Sprout Foods Inc. seeking compensation for Sprout’s allegedly deceptive and illegal practices in their labeling and marketing of baby and toddler food products. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant misbrands its baby and toddler food products by making nutrient content claims strictly prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as well as by misleading purchasers by believe the products are healthier than other children’s products.

Sprout products are marketed and intended for children under two years of age; many of these products are baby food “pouches” with nutrition claims on the packaging. According to the complaint, FDA regulations prohibit certain nutrient content claims for children under two years of age. Under these regulations, claims may be express or implied. The complaint alleges that the products in question explicitly state on their labels “intended for 12 months and over” or “8 months and over”.

The defendant is accused of violating the false advertising provisions of the Sherman Act with reference to specific sections dealing with false advertising, misbranding, and the sale of falsely branded products.

The plaintiffs claim they purchased Sprout baby food because of the nutrient content claims on the packaging, and would not have bought – or at least paid less – for the products Sprout without the misleading marketing. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs seek an order temporarily and permanently restraining the defendant from continuing the alleged illegal business practices, an award of compensatory, statutory, punitive, treble damages, and restitution. The plaintiffs are represented by Gutride Safier LLP.

Source link


Comments are closed.