Mondelez Lawsuit: Aldi Packaging, Class Actions, and FCPA

Mondelez International, the maker of Oreo, Chips Ahoy, Ritz, Wheat Thins, belVita, Clif Bar, and Toblerone, is a party to a wide range of lawsuits and regulatory actions. The most visible current Mondelez lawsuit is a May 2025 trademark case against discount grocer Aldi over private-label packaging, but the company’s active and recent legal exposure also includes consumer class actions over labeling, a European antitrust fine, a foreign bribery settlement, a cyber-insurance fight, and labor disputes. Here is where each stands.

The Aldi Packaging Lawsuit

On May 27, 2025, Mondelez and its subsidiary Intercontinental Great Brands sued Aldi in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Aldi’s store-brand packaging copies the look of Mondelez products closely enough to confuse shoppers.¹ The complaint, Case No. 1:25-cv-05905, brings claims under the Lanham Act for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, and seeks both damages and an injunction against continued sales of the accused products.²

Seven Mondelez products are named: Oreo, Wheat Thins, Nutter Butter, Chips Ahoy, Nilla Wafers, Ritz, and Premium saltines.³ For Oreo, for example, the complaint points to the blue background with a light-blue halo, tilted black sandwich cookies with white filling, a curved white sans-serif product name, and a red logo in the upper-left corner. Mondelez also alleges a broader “pattern and practice,” saying it had previously contacted Aldi about packaging for Teddy Grahams, Belvita, Tate’s Bake Shop, and Triscuit.⁴

Aldi filed its answer in November 2025 and has not commented publicly. The case is in fact discovery, with a discovery cutoff of October 2, 2026, before Judge Jeremy C. Daniel. The parties disagree on how to talk settlement: Mondelez wants private mediation, Aldi prefers a court settlement conference. No merits rulings have been issued.¹

Consumer Class Actions Over Labeling

Several class actions target the way Mondelez markets its snacks. Two have settled. Two are active.

Wheat Thins “100% Whole Grain”

In Wallenstein v. Mondelez International, Inc. (N.D. Cal., No. 3:22-cv-06033-VC), plaintiffs alleged the “100% Whole Grain” label on Wheat Thins was false because the crackers contain refined grains. Mondelez agreed to a $10 million settlement fund and to stop using the claim on the covered products. The class covers U.S. purchasers 18 or older who bought specified varieties between October 13, 2018, and May 9, 2025. Claimants without proof of purchase were eligible for $4.50 per household; those with receipts, $8 to $20, subject to pro rata reduction.⁵ The court granted final approval on December 12, 2025, and payments began January 12, 2026.⁶

belVita “Nutritious”

In McMorrow v. Mondelez International, Inc. (S.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-02327), consumers said Mondelez deceptively marketed belVita breakfast biscuits as “nutritious” and providing “sustained energy” despite high added sugar.⁷ Mondelez agreed to an $8 million fund and to stop using “nutritious” and synonyms on belVita products where more than 10% of calories come from added sugar. Judge Cynthia Bashant granted final approval on April 8, 2022. Consumers received an average cash refund of roughly $21, and class counsel received about $2.67 million in fees.⁸

“Cocoa Life” and “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa”

Two active suits challenge Mondelez’s sustainability claims. In Van Meter v. Mondelez International, Inc., first filed in the Northern District of California in January 2024 and refiled in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 24-cv-7368), the plaintiff alleged Mondelez pays cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivoire as little as $3 per day, that this drives child labor, and that the supply chain contributes to deforestation while packaging tells consumers otherwise.⁹

On December 18, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Mondelez’s motion to dismiss. It found a “plausible theory of deception” as to the “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa” text on Oreo packaging and let those claims proceed. It dismissed claims tied to products the plaintiff had not personally bought (leaving Oreos and Toblerone), held she lacked standing for injunctive relief, and ruled the “Cocoa Life” seal alone, without accompanying text, was not enough to support a deception claim.¹⁰

A related case, Pearson v. Mondelez Global LLC (No. 25-cv-10819), attacks the same labels on a different theory: that Mondelez uses “mass balance” accounting to mix certified and uncertified beans, so no product’s actual sustainable content is knowable. In December 2025, the court denied Mondelez’s motion to consolidate the two, citing risk of prejudicial conflict between the theories. Both cases remain active.¹⁰

Clif Bar “Climate Neutral” (Dismissed)

In Salguero v. Mondelez International Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-02139), the plaintiff argued “climate neutral” labeling on Clif Kid Zbars was misleading because manufacturing emits greenhouse gases equivalent to over 12,500 gas-powered cars.¹¹ Judge Manish S. Shah dismissed the case on October 27, 2025. He distinguished a self-declared “climate neutral” claim from a third-party “climate neutral certified” designation issued by the Change Climate Project, and found no reasonable consumer would read the certified label as a promise of zero manufacturing emissions.¹²

European Union Antitrust Fine

On May 23, 2024, the European Commission fined Mondelez 337.5 million euros, roughly $366 million, for restricting cross-border trade in chocolate, biscuits, and coffee within the EU.¹³ The Commission identified 22 violations involving parallel-trade restrictions and two instances of abuse of dominant position, spanning 2006 to 2020.¹⁴

According to the Commission, Mondelez required traders to charge more for exports than domestic sales and, in one instance, pulled chocolate bars from the Netherlands to block resale into Belgium. Between 2015 and 2019, it refused to supply a German trader to keep products out of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, and Romania. The investigation opened with November 2019 raids on Mondelez offices in Germany, Belgium, and Austria. Mondelez cooperated during 2022–2024 and received a 15% fine reduction, calling the incidents “historical, isolated” and tied to brokers and small-scale distributors.¹³

FCPA Settlement Over India Bribery

In January 2017, Mondelez and its subsidiary Cadbury Limited paid $13 million to settle SEC charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.¹⁵ The conduct followed Mondelez’s 2010 acquisition of Cadbury. A Cadbury subsidiary in India had retained a consultant to obtain government licenses for a chocolate factory in Baddi. The consultant was paid roughly $90,666 over six months and withdrew most of it in cash, while Cadbury employees actually prepared the license applications. One resulting tax designation gave Mondelez roughly $85 million in tax benefits.¹⁶

The SEC charged violations of the FCPA’s books-and-records and internal-controls provisions, citing inadequate pre-acquisition due diligence and a failure to catch the consultant during a six-month post-acquisition review. Mondelez discovered the relationship in October 2010, terminated the consultant, and rolled out a global compliance program. A whistleblower reported the matter to the SEC in 2015.¹⁶

NotPetya Cyber-Insurance Dispute

The 2017 NotPetya cyberattack, which originated in Ukrainian tax software, damaged 1,700 servers and 24,000 laptops at Mondelez, with the company estimating total damages above $100 million.¹⁷ Zurich American Insurance denied Mondelez’s all-risk property claim, invoking the policy’s exclusion for losses from “hostile or warlike action” by a government or sovereign power and pointing to NotPetya’s attribution to Russian military intelligence.¹⁸ The case was closely watched as a test of act-of-war exclusions in cyber losses. The parties settled in late October 2022 on undisclosed terms.¹⁹

Labor Disputes

The National Labor Relations Board found in 2020 that Mondelez Global, LLC unlawfully suspended and terminated three icing mixers and floor helpers at its Fair Lawn, New Jersey bakery in retaliation for union support. The Seventh Circuit enforced the order in July 2021. After the Fair Lawn bakery closed that same month, Mondelez agreed in March 2022 to a compliance stipulation paying the three workers a lump sum of $2,313,126; they waived reinstatement rights at other facilities.²⁰

In August 2021, roughly 1,000 members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union walked off the job at five Mondelez facilities, including plants in Portland, Oregon and Richmond, Virginia. At issue was a proposed seven-day alternating shift schedule and elimination of weekend overtime pay.²¹ Mondelez used replacement workers and temporarily canceled health coverage for strikers. The five-week strike ended September 18, 2021 with a four-year contract. Mondelez dropped its demands for rotating 12-hour shifts and new-hire healthcare contributions, existing workers kept holiday and weekend overtime, and any new weekend shifts would be filled first by volunteers, then by new hires.²²

1
CourtListener. Mondelez International, Inc. v. Aldi Inc.
2
Mouseprint.org. Mondelez v. Aldi Complaint
3
Meat+Poultry. Mondelez Files Complaint Against Aldi Packaging, Starting Court Battle
4
CNN. Mondelez Sues Aldi Over Packaging
5
ClassAction.org. $10M Wheat Thins Settlement Resolves Class Action Lawsuit Over 100% Whole Grain Claims
6
ClaimDepot. Wheat Thins Product Settlement
7
Bloomberg Law. Mondelez BelVita $8 Million Class Deal Gets Initial Green Light
8
Bloomberg Law. Mondelez $8 Million BelVita False Ad Deal Gets Final Green Light
9
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Mondelez of Child Labor and Deforestation
10
Courthouse News Service. Mondelez Faces Misrepresentation Suit Over Sustainable Cocoa
11
Expert Institute. Mondelez Clif Bar Climate Neutral Labeling Dismissal
12
Bloomberg Law. Mondelez Sheds Clif Bar Climate Neutral False Advertising Suit
13
CBS News. Oreo Mondelez $366 Million Antitrust Fine EU
14
European Commission. Case AT.40632 – Mondelez Trade Restrictions
15
SEC. SEC Enforcement Actions – FCPA Cases
16
Stanford FCPA Clearinghouse. Mondelez International, Inc. FCPA Investigation
17
Cybersecurity Dive. Mondelez Zurich NotPetya Cyber Insurance Settlement
18
Brookings Institution. How the NotPetya Attack Is Reshaping Cyber Insurance
19
The Record. Mondelez and Zurich Reach Settlement in NotPetya Cyberattack Insurance Suit
20
NLRB. Region 22 Newark Wins $2.3 Million for Three Unlawfully Discharged Workers
21
OPB. Nabisco Bakery Workers Strike Portland Union Contract Negotiations
22
In These Times. Nabisco Workers Strike Union Labor Mondelez