"sweetened with monk fruit" and "sugar free" plausibly suggest food is entirely/predominantly sweetened with monk fruit

Scott v. Saraya USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-05232-WHO, 2023 WL 3819366 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2023)

Scott alleged that Saraya’s representations that its granola and other products are “sweetened with monk fruit” or “monk fruit sweetened” were false and deceptive because they are not entirely or predominantly sweetened with monk fruit, bringing the usual California statutory and common-law claims. The court found that Scott plausibly alleged that these statements, read alongside the statements “sugar free,” “no sugar added,” or “zero sugar” also appearing on the products’ front labels, would mislead a reasonable consumer to believe that they were solely or predominantly sweetened with monk fruit.

The complaint alleged that monk fruit was “a premium fruit which consumers value given its nutritional values, lack of impact on blood sugar, antioxidant levels, and more” and that “[c]onsumers seeking monk fruit products do so for a specific reason—they want solely, if not predominantly, monk fruit given its premium nature and understood benefits.” Further, the complaint alleged that Saraya’s competitors “offer products that are advertised similarly and are actually solely sweetened with monk fruit” and Saraya itself sells “Lakanto Monkfruit Extract Drops,” which are also advertised as having “zero sugar” and contain only monk fruit. Thus, consumers could reasonably believe that products can actually be sweetened solely with monk fruit. However, the challenged products are  allegedly“predominantly sweetened with erythritol,” a sugar alcohol that “can lead to multiple side effects, including digestive problems, diarrhea, bloating, cramps, gas, nausea, and headaches,” and that has been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Monk fruit is allegedly less processed and “considered to be a more premium sweetener than erythritol,” and is “much more expensive.”

An earlier version of the complaint didn’t sufficiently allege why consumers would believe that

“sweetened with monk fruit” or “monk fruit sweetened,” “on their own,” meant “entirely, or at the very least predominantly, sweetened with monk fruit.” The amended complaint fixed this problem by alleging both that “sugar free,” “no sugar added,” or “zero sugar” on the front, coupled with mention of only one sweetener, misled consumers, along with the existence of monk fruit-only sweetened competitors.

Saraya argued that the product nowhere said “only monk fruit.” Although the back of the label “contains a short passage on the discovery of monk fruit, its perceived benefits, and where Lakanto harvests its monk fruit,” it also contains an ingredient list that “expressly states that the product contains ‘Non GMO Lakanto Monkfruit Sweetener (Erythritol and Monk Fruit Extract).” That wasn’t enough, given the plausible allegations of the complaint.

With no other sweetener mentioned on the front label, it is plausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that monk fruit was the products’ sole or predominant sweetener. That the sugar and monk fruit representations both appear in large font on the representative labels, with the sugar statements made above the monk fruit statements, further support this.

The existence of competitors with all monk fruit sweetening carried less weight but still helped.