The main RXBAR lawsuit was a 2018 class action in federal court in New York, Pizzirusso v. Chicago Bar Company LLC, which alleged that the brand’s minimalist front-of-pack ingredient list misled consumers by calling egg white protein powder “egg whites” and labeling juice-infused fruit pieces simply as “blueberries.” The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice about six months after filing, and no settlement terms were publicly disclosed.1CourtListener. Pizzirusso v. Chicago Bar Company LLC
What the Complaint Alleged
Michael Pizzirusso filed the class-action complaint on June 15, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:18-cv-03529). He was represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC and Joshua Levin-Epstein of Levin-Epstein & Associates PC, and the suit covered both RXBAR and RXBAR Kids products.2Food Navigator USA. RXBAR Sued Over Minimalist Labels Ingredients Declaration3Truth in Advertising. The Ingredients in RXBAR and RXBAR Kids
Two labeling practices were at the heart of the complaint:
- The egg white claim. RXBAR allegedly used “egg white fractions,” essentially dried egg white protein powder, while the front and back of the package said “egg whites.” Older packaging had reportedly listed “egg white protein powder” on the back panel, and the plaintiff alleged the name was shortened without any change to the formulation.2Food Navigator USA. RXBAR Sued Over Minimalist Labels Ingredients Declaration
- The fruit claim. Dried fruit pieces in the bars were allegedly infused with sweeteners such as apple juice concentrate, but the packaging listed them simply as “blueberries” or by other fruit names. Earlier labels had reportedly used the fuller description “dried wild blueberries infused with apple juice concentrate.”4Xtalks. Kellogg’s RXBAR Sued for False Label Claims
The complaint brought claims under New York general business law for negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud, and unjust enrichment. It argued that consumers, and parents buying RXBAR Kids in particular, would be less inclined to buy the bars if they understood the ingredients to be concentrated protein powders and juice-infused fruit rather than the whole foods implied by the short ingredient list.2Food Navigator USA. RXBAR Sued Over Minimalist Labels Ingredients Declaration
How RXBAR and Food Lawyers Responded
RXBAR issued a short statement: “We stand by our product and packaging.”4Xtalks. Kellogg’s RXBAR Sued for False Label Claims The company did not announce any changes to its labels or formulations.
Food-labeling attorneys who commented on the case were skeptical of its chances. Justin Prochnow of Greenberg Traurig noted that FDA regulations at 21 CFR 101.4 allow dried egg whites to be identified as “egg whites,” which gave RXBAR a straightforward defense. Adam Fox of Squire Patton Boggs called some of the allegations “facile” and expressed “serious doubts” that any consumer’s purchasing decision would hinge on whether an egg white had been fractionated. Ryan Kaiser of Amin Talati Upadhye said the case could be “over very quickly” if the factual allegations rested on speculation rather than lab testing.2Food Navigator USA. RXBAR Sued Over Minimalist Labels Ingredients Declaration
How the Case Ended
On December 10, 2018, Pizzirusso filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order dismissing the case two days later.1CourtListener. Pizzirusso v. Chicago Bar Company LLC A dismissal with prejudice bars the same plaintiff from bringing the same claims again. Nothing in the docket shows a settlement, and neither side publicly disclosed whether any payment was made. FDA compliance consultant Evelyn Cadman said the non-frivolous nature of the claims might suggest a settlement was reached, but that is speculation rather than a confirmed outcome.5New Hope. Clean Label Brands Leave Themselves Open to Plaintiff’s Attorney Tactics
The quick resolution tracked a pattern in clean-label litigation. The same attorneys filed a nearly simultaneous case against That’s It Nutrition LLC making similar claims about fruit bars (Medina v. That’s It Nutrition LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02022, E.D.N.Y.), and that case was also voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, terminating on July 19, 2018.6CourtListener. Medina v. That’s It Nutrition LLC Attorney Cary Silverman of Shook, Hardy and Bacon said brands that strip packaging down to a short ingredient list can become “a plaintiffs’ lawyer’s dream” because the minimalism itself invites the inference that the short list is the whole story.5New Hope. Clean Label Brands Leave Themselves Open to Plaintiff’s Attorney Tactics
Other Scrutiny of RXBAR Labels
The Pizzirusso lawsuit was not the only time RXBAR’s packaging drew challenges, and the related scrutiny went in RXBAR’s favor on the merits.
TINA.org on Omitted Ingredients
Consumer advocacy group TINA.org flagged a separate concern: “natural flavors” and sea salt appeared in all 14 RXBAR products but were not shown on the short ingredient list on the front of the wrapper. TINA.org argued that the “No B.S.” marketing, paired with language like “We tell you what’s on the inside, on the outside,” could lead consumers to read the front label as a complete list of ingredients.7Truth in Advertising. RXBAR An RXBAR spokesperson told Mouseprint.org, “we do not claim that the front of the packaging represents all ingredients in the product.” FDA regulations require a full ingredient list in descending order of predominance on the information panel, but have no specific rules governing voluntary front-of-pack ingredient callouts beyond the general prohibition on false or misleading statements.8Mouseprint.org. RXBars Simple Ingredients Simply Incomplete Ingredients List
Kind’s NAD Challenge
Competitor Kind Inc. filed a challenge with the National Advertising Division arguing that RXBAR’s front-of-pack list implied the ingredients were listed in order of weight and that nothing else was in the bar. Kind backed its challenge with consumer survey evidence. In a decision reported in December 2019, the NAD ruled against Kind, finding that RXBAR’s labels communicated a substantiated claim about the product’s main ingredients and did not “convey misleading implied claims about weight and proportions.” The NAD also identified “significant flaws” in Kind’s surveys and confirmed that labeling dehydrated egg white powder as “egg whites” is permitted under FDA rules.9Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Food and Beverage Litigation Update
A Separate Prop 65 Notice in 2022
A different kind of legal action targeted RXBAR in June 2022. Consumer Rights Advocates, LLC filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue Kellogg Company, Kellogg USA, Kellogg Sales Company, Chicago Bar Company, and Insurgent Brands under California’s Proposition 65, alleging that the RXBAR Peanut Butter Chocolate Protein Bar exposed consumers to lead without the warning Prop 65 requires. The notice cited risks of birth defects and reproductive harm from ingestion and dermal absorption, and sought recalls or warning labels, reformulation, and civil penalties.10California Attorney General. Proposition 65 Notice of Violation A public resolution of that matter is not reflected in the available record. It is a separate dispute from the 2018 labeling case and was never consolidated with it.