Nature's Bakery sells various flavors of fig bars. The company promotes the products with statements such as “what we bake in is as important as what we leave out,” “simple snacks made with real ingredients,” “wholesome baked in,” and “equal parts wholesome and delicious.” On the packaging, Nature's Bakery also says “We ‘Heart' Figs” next to a picture of a heart. Are these statements advertising claims that require substantiation or are they simply non-actionable puffery? That was the issue in a recent case in federal court in California.
A consumer sued Nature's Bakery under California law, alleging that these statements were false and misleading because they misled consumers about how healthy the fig bars are. According to the consumer, the products are not good for you, because they are high in sugar.
The consumer's claims are governed by California's “reasonable consumer” test. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead facts that show that the alleged misrepresentations are “likely to deceive reasonable consumers.” Importantly, a plaintiff must allege “more than a mere possibility that the advertisement might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” Instead, the reasonable consumer standards requires a probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.”
What is puffery?
Advertising claims – which require proof to back them up – are statements that are quantifiable. Puffery, on the other hand, is “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boating upon which no reasonable buyer would rely.”
Here, the court held that a number of the statements made by Nature's Bakery are puffery, including “what we bake in is as important as what we leave out” and “simple snacks made with real ingredients." The court determined that these types of statements “make unmeasurable, subjective claims about Nature's Bakery Products on which no reasonable buyer would rely.”
The court also didn't think that “We ‘Heart' Figs” was a claim either. Even though the plaintiff argued that Nature's Bakery was making some sort of “heart healthy” claim here, the court didn't buy it. The court held that, the statement, along with the picture of the heart, didn't communicate anything specific or measurable.
Is “wholesome” puffery?
The court came to a different conclusion, however, regarding Nature's Bakery's “wholesome” claims.
The court didn't think that the statements, “wholesome baked in” and “equal parts wholesome and delicious,” were exaggerated statements of opinion that consumers wouldn't rely on. Instead, the court felt that the language did emphasize the “wholesome" quality of the fig bars. In other words, the court felt that Nature's Bakery was, in fact, making a specific claim here that the product was a healthy product. In light of the fact that the plaintiff had alleged that the product contained unhealthy levels of sugar, the court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a claim that reasonable consumers could be misled about whether the product was, in fact, a healthy product.
The court also didn't think that the presence of the Nutrition Facts panel and the ingredient list led to a different conclusion.
Levit v. Nature's Bakery, 2025 WL 579192 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
