Class Action Takes Issue with Labeling of King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges company behind King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls has misleadingly led consumers to believe that the product is made in Hawaii.

The 24-page lawsuit contends that contrary to defendant King’s Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc.’s representations and omissions, the product, unbeknownst to consumers, lacks ingredients historically associated with the bread and is not made through traditional methods. Moreover, the defendant’s labeling of packages of King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls leads consumers to expect that the product is bona fide Hawaiian and made in the state, the complaint claims.

In truth, King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls are made well outside of the Aloha State and cost more than similar products labeled “without misleading representations,” the suit charges:

“Despite the representations as to the Product’s origin, the Product is not made in Hawaii but California. 

The Product lacks the Hawaiian ingredients associated with original Hawaiian sweet breads—pineapple juice, sugar, and honey—grown and harvested in Hawaii.” 

The case mentions that although the back of packages of King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls denote the name of the manufacturer and its place of business—Torrance, California—this information “is not identical to where the Product is made.” As a result, consumers who scrutinize the fine print on the back of the product will not be informed that the sweet rolls are not made in Hawaii, and learn only that the entity responsible for the product has its main office in California, the lawsuit says. 

“In conjunction with the Product’s packaging and extensive advertisements and marketing, this causes consumers to mistakenly believe that they are purchasing a product with immediate Hawaiian origins,” the complaint reads.

After relaying the origins of Hawaiian sweet breads as a food that came to the islands via Portuguese immigrants working on pineapple and sugar cane plantations in the mid-to-late 19th century, the lawsuit states that consumers have a plethora of options to choose from as far as buying products labeled as Hawaiian sweet breads. The case says that although the defendant, the market leader, has zealously sought to prevent other companies from marketing “Hawaiian Rolls” with packaging it feels infringes upon its floral design, the company had no objection to others selling Hawaiian Rolls given it knows that consumers “associate its brand with authentic Hawaiian rolls which are made in Hawaii.”

“Despite many companies which market varieties of sweet rolls, consumers, and Plaintiffs, purchased King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls based on the representations that they were made in Hawaii,” the complaint reads. “Plaintiffs did not think that any of the other (i.e., non-King’s) Hawaiian sweet rolls were made in Hawaii.” 

Included on the product’s label are the representations “EST. 1950,” “HILO, HAWAII” and tropical flowers in orange colors, the suit notes. Per the case, the defendant’s three-point crown logo is “evocative of a pineapple’s crown and reflects the connection between pineapple juice and Hawaiian sweet bread.” 

These representations lead reasonable consumers to believe the defendant’s rolls are actually made in Hawaii, the case claims, noting King’s Hawaiian also includes on its website an offer for “FREE standard mainland shipping on orders over $30,” among other representations that the bread is made in the state.

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers residing in California or New York who bought King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls for personal or household consumption and use at any time since June 3, 2015.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.