Mondelez International, the maker of Oreos, advertises that its cookies include
“100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa.” Mondelez also
advertises that it helps “support sustainable cocoa
sourcing” and that Cocoa Life – the company’s own
cocoa sustainability program – helps “make cocoa
sourcing more sustainable in key cocoa-producing
countries.”
A plaintiff sued for false advertising, alleging that
Mondelez’s sourcing of cocoa isn’t sustainable at all due
to the fact that the company benefits from child and slave labor
and that its purchasing activities don’t follow sustainable
environmental protocols.
Mondelez moved to dismiss, and a federal court in Illinois
allowed the plaintiff’s false advertising claims to continue.
Here’s why.
First, Mondelez argued that the case should be dismissed because
the plaintiff’s allegations are based on government and
industry reports about the cocoa supply chain in general, not about
what Mondelez itself is doing. While the court agreed that the
plaintiff can’t rely solely on common industry practices, the
court found that the plaintiff had, in fact, made specific
allegations related to Mondelez own practices, including
allegations that child-slave labor is used on Mondelez plantations
that the company is involved in deforesting indigenous communities.
The court explained, “To be sure, the complaint is replete
with concerns about the industry at large. But there are sufficient
Mondelez-specific allegations to survive a motion to
dismiss.”
Second, Mondelez argued that its use of the Cocoa Life seal is
not misleading, since it says “nothing about sustainability,
labor practices, or environmental practices” and reflects only
its participation in the program. The court agreed that when the
seal is used in isolation, it doesn’t communicate anything
about sustainability. The court found, however, that when the seal
is used in the context of other sustainability claims, it could be
deceptive, potentially communicating misleading sustainability
claims or that Cocoa Life is a third-party certification.
Third, Mondelez argued that its sustainability claims are
subjective and aspirational and therefore not actionable. The court
didn’t buy the argument that Mondelez’s statements about
sustainability are non-actionable puffery. The court explained,
“Mondelez does not use ‘sustainable’ in a vacuum. A
reasonable consumer could plausibly believe it defined by
back-label ‘protect[ing] people & planet” language and
quantified by the front-label ‘100%’ promise.” In
other words, while a “sustainable” claim could be puffery
on its own, the other statements on the package provided context
and meaning for the claim, making it potentially actionable.
Finally, the court rejected Mondelez’s argument that the
packaging isn’t misleading because it directs consumers to a
website to learn more. The court wasn’t ready, at least at this
stage in the proceeding, to hold that consumers had an obligation
to hunt down additional information.
Waggener Van Meter v. Mondelez, 2025 WL 3678444 (N.D.
Ill. 2025).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link
