Pepperidge Farm (owned by Campbell Soup) makes the well-known Goldfish snack crackers.  On the front of the packaging, there's a statement that the product has "0g Sugars."  Does this statement -- regardless of what other information may also appear on the front of the package -- communicate to consumers that Goldfish crackers are a low-calorie food?  That was the issue in a recent case in federal court in California. 

A consumer sued Campbell Soup under New York and California law, alleging that the "0g Sugars" claim on the front of the Goldfish package misleads consumers into believing that the crackers are a low-calorie food that is good for weight control.  The court easily dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff's claims were implausible.

First, the court said that the "0g Sugars" claim does not make any express claims about calories.  The court explained, "The world is full of foods that are low-sugar and not low-calorie.  Nuts, butter, olive oil, avocados, and many cheeses come immediately to mind as foods widely understood to be low in sugar but relatively high in calories.  Consequently, it is not plausible to contend that a reasonable consumer would necessarily equate 0g sugars with reduced calories."  The court also pointed to the fact that some Goldfish crackers come in flavors like "Cheddar" and "Flavor Blasted Xplosive Pizza," explaining that they were "two foods that experience and common sense indicate are not good for calorie reduction."  

Second, the court said that the packaging itself further supports the implausibility of the plaintiff's claims.  The court pointed to the fact that the product's calorie count is actually included right near the "0g Sugars" statement on the front of the package.  The court explained, "A consumer does not need to read any find print, turn the package around for details, or do anything other than look at the front label to obtain the calorie count for a cracker serving."  

Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Company, 2022 WL 17835514 (N.D. Cal. 2022).