is an avocado a vegetable or a fruit? Court says it's ambiguous

Parashos v. Once Upon A Farm, No. 26-cv-00314-EMC,  2026 WL 2283647 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2026)

Once Upon A Farm allegedly violated California consumer protection laws by misleadingly labeling its baby product as the “Wild Rumpus Avocado ‘Fruit & Veggie Blend’ ” when in fact it contains no vegetables (but does contain avocados). The court found the claim implausible.

The front of the pouch displays multiple images of avocados, along with images of apples, banana, and pineapples. The back lists its ingredients as pineapple, banana, apple, avocado and mint.

The FDA classifies avocados as fruit and mint as an herb. So does the pouch contain “veggies”? The target audience is allegedly “health-conscious parents” who are “willing to pay a premium to ensure that the food that they provide to their children is nutritious and includes vegetables.” Plaintiff brought the usual California claims.

Dismissal is appropriate if the claim that a label is misleading “runs counter to ordinary common sense or the obvious nature of the product.” And “a survey of dictionary definitions, of which the Court takes judicial notice, suggests that the question of whether an avocado is a vegetable is not so clear-cut in common parlance, notwithstanding the technical botanical definition of avocados as a fruit.” Avocados, which contain a pit like peaches or cherries, fit the scientific definition of the “product of fertilization in a plant with its modified envelopes or appendages, specifically : the ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents.” But another meaning of “fruit” is “the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant especially: one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed.” “Avocados, like peppers, zucchini, and other botanical fruits, lack the ‘sweet pulp’ that would place them firmly within the ‘fruit’ category of popular usage.” Avocados also fit within broad definitions of “vegetable” such as “a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal.” Different dictionaries variously call an avocado a fruit or a vegetable.

Famously, in construing a tariff statute, the Supreme Court held that while “botanically speaking,” tomatoes are fruits, in “the common language of the people,” they are vegetables. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893), as are the technical seeds beans and lentils. Avocados are like tomatoes: “commonly served at meals as ingredients in e.g. burritos and sandwiches, and not, like fruits, as a sweet snack or a part of a dessert. And people eating chips and guacamole are not likely to think they are eating a fruit dip.” At the very least, the claim wasn’t unambiguously false. See, e.g, Henderson v. Gruma Corp., 2011 WL 1362188 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (granting a motion to dismiss on the grounds that a label promising “Garden Vegetables” was confirmed by the inclusion of avocado powder, dehydrated onion, garlic powder, and bell pepper); Gates v. Upfield US Inc., 2024 WL 3362857 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2024) (“Avocado oil is a type of vegetable oil known for its healthy qualities”; granting a motion to dismiss because a product labeled “made with avocado oil” and “79% vegetable oil spread” would not imply to a reasonable consumer that the product was made without other forms of vegetable oil).

Nor was this plausibly misleading. The front label was ambiguous enough that a reasonable consumer would have consulted the back label. “Ambiguous” in this context does not simply mean “susceptible to more than one reasonable meaning,” but rather that a reasonable consumer “would necessarily have required more information before concluding that the products’ front labels were making a specific promise.” Such “inherent ambiguity” was present here. The context reinforced that, with explicit reference to “Avocado” in the name of the product and a label showing multiple images of avocados, as well as bananas, apples, and pineapples. There was no other conceded vegetable shown. “There is thus an ambiguity as to whether the product contains vegetables other than avocados. Faced with this ambiguity, the reasonable consumer is expected to check the back label for complete information.”

The likelihood that a reasonable consumer would look to the back label was underscored by the fact that the product’s “target audience” was allegedly “health-conscious parents” who “would have particular reason to check the back label.”