"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 Baked In,” “equal parts wholesome and delicious,” “what we bake in is as important as what we leave out,” “simple snacks made with real ingredients,” and “the best fuel for active ... lives.” The packaging also includes a “ ‘heart’ vignette next to depictions of real, whole fruit, and also displays a ‘Whole Grains Council’ stamp.”

Nature's Bakery front panel

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

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

However, the statements using “wholesome” were potentially actionable.

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

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