Some of the most surprising food settlements in American consumer law came out of claims most shoppers would shrug at: an energy drink slogan, a yogurt health boast, the weight printed on a bag of oranges. Others involved tragedy, like the $160 million paid after a Philadelphia food truck exploded. What ties them together is the gap between what food companies say and what courts and regulators decide those words are worth.
Red Bull’s “Gives You Wings” Payout
The Red Bull case is the one most people remember, partly because the check was so easy to claim. Benjamin Careathers sued in the Southern District of New York in January 2013, arguing that the “gives you wings” slogan and related marketing led consumers to believe the drink offered energy and cognitive benefits beyond ordinary caffeine. An 8.4-ounce can holds about 80 milligrams of caffeine, roughly what a cup of coffee delivers.
Red Bull settled for $13 million in 2014, denying wrongdoing and citing litigation costs. Any U.S. customer who had bought a Red Bull product in the previous decade could file without proof of purchase, choosing $10 in cash or $15 in product. About two million people filed. That volume pushed the individual cash payout down to $4.25. A federal judge gave final approval on May 4, 2015.
Dannon’s Activia and DanActive: $45 Million and an FTC Deal
Dannon was hit from two directions over health claims for its Activia and DanActive yogurts. A class action in the Northern District of Ohio alleged that Dannon had marketed the products as “clinically” and “scientifically” proven to regulate digestion and support immunity, and that consumers had paid roughly a 30 percent premium for what was essentially regular yogurt.
U.S. District Judge Dan Polster approved a $45 million settlement. Dannon denied wrongdoing but agreed to drop “clinically proven” and “scientifically proven” in favor of softer phrasing like “clinical studies show,” and to add qualifiers noting that digestive benefits applied only when the yogurt was eaten daily for two weeks as part of a balanced diet.
Separately, the Federal Trade Commission charged Dannon with deceptive advertising over claims that Activia relieved digestive irregularity and DanActive helped consumers avoid colds and flu. In December 2010, Dannon agreed to pay $21 million to 39 state attorneys general and accepted restrictions on future health claims. The FTC voted 5-0 to approve the consent agreement.
Walmart’s Weighted Groceries: $45 Million
The most recent large consumer food settlement came from Kukorinis v. Walmart Inc., filed in October 2022 in the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleged that Walmart overcharged customers for items sold by weight, inflating the weights of meat, poultry, pork, and seafood so shoppers paid more than the shelf tag suggested. It also alleged that bagged citrus, including navel oranges, organic oranges, grapefruit, and tangerines, was labeled with a lower weight than what appeared at the shelf, so customers paid for more than they got.
Walmart settled for $45 million without admitting the claims. Anyone who bought the affected items in person at a U.S. Walmart store between October 2018 and January 2024 was eligible. With proof of purchase, a shopper could recover up to 2 percent of eligible spending, capped at $500. Without receipts, payouts ran from $10 to $25 depending on how many products were reported. No proof of purchase was required to file, and the claims deadline was June 5, 2024. The settlement administrator started issuing payments in late September 2025, averaging $25.97. As of early 2026, a second round of distributions was underway for claimants whose first payments failed.
Nutella as Part of a Balanced Breakfast: $3 Million
Ferrero USA settled a class action in 2012 over television advertising that presented Nutella as a wholesome breakfast option for children, despite the spread’s sugar and fat content. Ferrero paid $3 million without admitting wrongdoing. Consumers could claim up to $4 per jar, with a $20 cap per household.
Subway’s “Footlong”: The Settlement That Got Thrown Out
Not every food settlement survives. In January 2013, Australian teenager Matt Corby posted a photo of a Subway “Footlong” measuring 11 inches. Class actions followed and were consolidated as In re: Subway Footlong Sandwich Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
In February 2016, a federal judge approved a settlement requiring Subway to adopt quality controls to ensure sandwiches met their advertised length. The deal included about $525,000 in attorneys’ fees and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the ten named plaintiffs. Ordinary class members received nothing.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, writing for the panel, called the settlement “utterly worthless.” Shorter sandwiches contained the same amount of food by weight, and natural variation in baking made perfect uniformity impossible. The court held that “a class action that seeks only worthless benefits for the class and yields only fees for class counsel is no better than a racket.”
Taco Bell’s “Seasoned Beef” Suit Vanished
In January 2011, the law firm Beasley Allen filed a class action alleging Taco Bell’s “seasoned beef” contained only about 35 percent actual beef and was mostly oats, seasonings, and binders. Taco Bell said the product was 88 percent beef and ran a multimillion-dollar counter-campaign, including full-page newspaper ads headlined “Thank you for suing us.”
The plaintiffs withdrew the case. Taco Bell said no money changed hands and no recipe or marketing changes were made. The law firm said it was satisfied with the company’s public response on ingredient disclosures. Taco Bell reported spending between $3 million and $4 million defending itself.
Pop-Tarts and the Strawberry Question
Attorney Spencer Sheehan filed a wave of lawsuits in 2020 and 2021 alleging Kellogg’s Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts were misleadingly marketed because the filling contained more pears and apples than strawberries, with all three fruits together making up less than 2 percent of the product. One suit sought $5 million.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter dismissed the complaint, finding that no reasonable consumer, looking at the full label, would expect fresh strawberries to be the only fruit in the filling. There was no settlement.
The Largest Food Case in the File: $160 Million After a Food Truck Explosion
The biggest dollar figure here isn’t from a labeling dispute. On July 1, 2014, a propane tank on a food truck called La Parrillada Chapina ruptured in the Feltonville neighborhood of North Philadelphia. The truck’s owner, 42-year-old Olga Galdamez, and her 17-year-old daughter Jaylin died from burn injuries weeks later. Two others were severely burned.
The families sued U-Haul, alleging that a subsidiary had refilled outdated cylinders missing required safety valves. U-Haul maintained it had not filled the specific cylinder that exploded. In June 2018, the parties reached a $160 million pre-trial settlement through mediation before retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh — at the time, the largest pre-trial personal injury settlement in Pennsylvania history. One plaintiff received $69.17 million, another received $54.3 million, and the estates of Olga and Jaylin Galdamez received $36.47 million, with additional confidential amounts paid to each plaintiff.
The criminal side produced its own findings. Investigators determined that untrained employees had filled propane cylinders more than 60 times over three weeks. U-Haul Company of Pennsylvania and Miguel Rivera, the general manager of the Hunting Park location, pleaded guilty in January 2019 to violating federal hazardous materials regulations. U-Haul was fined $1 million and placed on two years’ probation with a compliance program.
What’s Still Moving in Food Litigation
Two active fronts may produce the next surprising settlements.
In late 2025, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed a complaint against eleven major food companies, including Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestlé, Mars, and Mondelez, alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance. The complaint says the companies knowingly designed addictive ultraprocessed products, targeted children, and concealed health risks. The city is seeking injunctive relief and funding for public education and treatment. Individual personal-injury suits are also moving: manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss a complaint from a plaintiff who alleged ultraprocessed foods caused his childhood type 2 diabetes, and a Wisconsin woman filed a similar suit in April 2026.
Hundreds of lawsuits alleging that baby food brands, including Gerber, Beech-Nut, Happy Baby, Earth’s Best, and Plum Organics, sold products with dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury have been consolidated into MDL-3101 in the Northern District of California. In March 2026, the presiding judge excluded five of the plaintiffs’ six expert witnesses, finding their opinions on exposure and causation relied on hypothetical dietary models rather than documented consumption. A California state court excluded a key toxicology expert on similar grounds in February 2026. Defendants argue that conditions like autism and ADHD have complex, multifactorial origins that cannot be traced to baby food. The litigation is still in discovery, with no global settlement in sight and bellwether trials expected but not firmly scheduled.