The Dave’s Killer Bread lawsuit was a proposed class action accusing the brand and its parent, Flowers Foods, of overstating the usable protein content on sixteen of its breads, bagels, and burger buns. Filed in December 2023 in federal court in Illinois, the case survived a motion to dismiss in January 2025 and then ended in a settlement on March 18, 2026, when Judge Sunil R. Harjani terminated the case. The individual plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice; the putative class claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the financial terms were not made public.1ALM Media. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Minute Entry 125
What the Lawsuit Claimed
The complaint, Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. (No. 1:23-cv-16439), was brought by five plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Dave’s Killer Bread, its parent Flowers Foods, Inc., and Flowers Bakeries LLC.2Justia. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc., No. 1:2023cv16439
The allegation was that the front of the packaging touted a specific number of grams of protein per serving, but the protein the human body could actually absorb was far less. The plaintiffs relied on an FDA-recognized measure called the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, or PDCAAS, which adjusts raw protein numbers based on digestibility. Because the bread’s protein comes primarily from wheat and oats, both considered lower-quality protein sources, the lawsuit claimed shoppers were getting only about 40 to 50 percent of the protein the front labels suggested.3Packaging Digest. Healthy Bread’s Protein Claims Prompt Lawsuit
The complaint also alleged that the Nutrition Facts panel omitted a corrected percent daily value for protein, which FDA regulations require when a manufacturer voluntarily makes a protein claim on the front of the package. The plaintiffs said they relied on the front-label numbers when buying the bread and would not have purchased it had they known the actual digestible protein content.2Justia. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc., No. 1:2023cv16439
How the Case Moved Through Court
Dave’s Killer Bread first tried to get the case thrown out on legal grounds. On January 10, 2025, Judge Harjani issued a mixed ruling that kept most of the case alive. He dismissed only the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, finding they had not shown a “real and immediate threat of future injury” now that they knew about the labeling practices they were complaining about. All seven substantive counts were allowed to proceed.2Justia. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc., No. 1:2023cv16439
Two rulings stood out. The court rejected the argument that federal food labeling law preempted the state-law claims, reasoning that because the company voluntarily chose to put protein claims on the front of its packaging, state consumer protection claims about those voluntary statements were not blocked. The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiffs could only sue over the specific products they personally bought, finding the alleged misrepresentations across all sixteen products were “substantially similar” enough to give plaintiffs standing across the full line.2Justia. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc., No. 1:2023cv16439
Once discovery got underway, the defense tried again. On January 15, 2026, Dave’s Killer Bread filed a second motion to dismiss, this time attacking standing on factual grounds using the plaintiffs’ own deposition testimony.4Law.com. Round 2: Dave’s Killer Bread Again Seeks to Dismiss Allegations Over Mislabeled Protein Contents According to the motion, three of the four remaining plaintiffs testified that the missing percent daily value had no effect on their purchasing decisions and that they would have bought the bread regardless. A fourth plaintiff, Taylor, reportedly testified that the specific product she bought actually did include a percent daily value. Two of the plaintiffs also admitted to continuing to buy the products even after suing.5ALM Media. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
The court did not rule on that second motion. The parties settled first.
How the Case Ended
On March 18, 2026, Judge Harjani entered an order terminating the case. The individual plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot bring them again. The putative class claims were dismissed without prejudice. Each side agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.1ALM Media. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Minute Entry 125
The dismissal was entered as a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which means the parties agreed to end the case rather than having a court decide it on the merits.1ALM Media. Taylor v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Minute Entry 125 The financial terms of the settlement, if any, have not been made public. King & Spalding, the law firm that defended Dave’s Killer Bread, described the matter as a “class action settlement regarding a protein mislabeling dispute.”6Law.com. Dave’s Killer Bread Reaches Settlement in Protein Mislabeling Suit
For consumers, the practical result matters. Because the class claims were dismissed without prejudice and no class was ever certified, there is no settlement fund and no claims process for buyers of Dave’s Killer Bread products to file against. The case did not produce refunds, coupons, or a payout program for the general public.
An Earlier Case in California
The Illinois lawsuit was not the first attempt at this theory. In 2021, a nearly identical case, Swartz v. Dave’s Killer Bread, Inc. (No. 4:21-cv-10053), was filed in the Northern District of California. It was dismissed in May 2022 after the court found the plaintiff had not shown standing regarding the missing percent daily value on the label.7National Agricultural Law Center. Food Labeling Litigation Trends: Protein Different lawyers refiled the theory in Illinois, restructured the claims, and got further.
Part of a Wider Wave of Protein Labeling Suits
Beginning around 2021, plaintiffs’ firms filed a series of class actions against food companies over front-of-package protein claims, often using the same PDCAAS theory. Targets included Kashi, KIND, Flatout, and Beyond Meat.7National Agricultural Law Center. Food Labeling Litigation Trends: Protein
Results have varied by court. In Nacarino v. Kashi, the Ninth Circuit held that the nitrogen method manufacturers use to calculate protein is permitted by FDA regulations and that front-label protein claims do not have to be adjusted for digestibility. In Chong v. Kind, a district court found that percent-daily-value omission claims were preempted by federal law.7National Agricultural Law Center. Food Labeling Litigation Trends: Protein The Illinois ruling in the Dave’s Killer Bread case went the other way at the motion-to-dismiss stage and stood as one of the more plaintiff-friendly rulings in this line of cases before settlement closed it out.
The Regulatory Backdrop
These cases turn on 21 C.F.R. § 101.9, which governs nutrition labeling. Under the rule, a manufacturer that declares grams of protein on its packaging triggers specific obligations, and if the food’s protein quality is lower than a reference standard as measured by PDCAAS, the percent daily value in the Nutrition Facts panel must be adjusted downward to reflect actual digestibility.8eCFR. 21 CFR Part 101 – Food Labeling
The gap that drove the litigation was the difference between two figures: the total grams of protein measured by nitrogen testing, which is what appears on the front of many packages, and the PDCAAS-corrected figure that reflects how much protein the body can actually use. For grain-based foods like bread, the plaintiffs alleged the corrected figure cut the effective protein roughly in half.