In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondeléz International, Inc. (“Mondeléz”).  Salguero v. Mondeléz Int’l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025).  Mondeléz, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars (“Zbars”) while labeling the packaging as “climate neutral certified.”  Id.  The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California’s consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.  Id.

The court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that Mondeléz’s label was factually true and not misleading.  The climate neutral certification was granted by a third-party organization, the Change Climate Project, which helps companies “measure, manage, and reduce the footprint of their products.”  Id. at *2.  Companies that comply with the Change Climate Project’s standards achieve the climate neutral certification.  Id.  The complaint only alleged that the label was deceptive because the Zbars were not climate neutral, but did not actually allege that it was false or misleading to label the Zbars as climate neutral certified, which the court said was a “distinction with a difference.”  Id. at *4.  Further, the complaint did not allege that Mondeléz violated or otherwise did not meet the Change Climate Project’s standards or that the certification given to participating companies is inaccurate.  Id. 

The plaintiff argued that the FTC’s Green Guides are codified as law in California (see Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771, 784 (9th Cir. 2024) (referencing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580.5)), and therefore third-party certifications do not eliminate a marketer’s obligation to substantiate all claims communicated by a certification.  The court was still not convinced that the Zbar labels fell below this standard, ultimately stating that while reasonable consumers are not expected to conduct independent research to substantiate claims made on product labels, they are not permitted “to defy common sense and everyday experiences.”  Id. at *5.  The court recognized that while true statements can sometimes be misleading if “couched in such a manner that is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer,” the plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to render the true label misleading.  Id. at *5. 

Because all of the claims asserted by the plaintiff were premised on the same flawed deceptive advertising theory, the court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  This case stands as an important example of a court refusing to entertain a deceptive advertising class action where the challenged labels are factually true and would not deceive reasonable consumers.