in Newswire Published on December 3, 2021

MiO Water Enhancer Contains Undisclosed Artificial Flavors, Class Action Says [DISMISSED]

Last Updated on September 29, 2023

Boss et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company et al.

Filed: November 30, 2021 ◆§ 1:21-cv-06380

The maker of MiO has failed to disclose that the water-flavoring product contains artificial flavoring, a proposed class action alleges.

Defendant(s)

Kraft Heinz Foods Company The Kraft Heinz Company

Law(s)

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act California Business and Professions Code California Unfair Competition Law California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

State(s)

Illinois

September 29, 2023 – MiO Artificial Flavor Class Action Thrown Out by Federal Judge

The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed with prejudice by a federal judge on September 7, 2023.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

In an order issued that day, United States District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman granted Kraft Heinz’s March 2022 motion to dismiss the case, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims were “based on an unreasonable interpretation” of the MiO product’s label.

According to the six-page order, Judge Coleman found that the front-label statement “Natural Flavor with Other Natural Flavors” does not constitute an “affirmative representation that the product is free from artificial flavors.” The judge added that “[c]ourts have interpreted FDA regulations to expressly permit a food product to be labeled as containing natural flavors, despite the ingredients themselves not being all natural.”

Consequently, Judge Coleman wrote that “absent an affirmative representation that MiO is an ‘all-natural’ product or free from artificial ingredients, the omission of an ‘artificial flavor’ disclosure would not mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the products are completely natural and free from artificial flavors.”

The court closed the case the same day, on September 7 of this year.

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

The maker of MiO has failed to disclose that the water-flavoring product contains artificial flavoring, a proposed class action alleges.

The 36-page lawsuit alleges the Kraft Heinz Company and Kraft Heinz Foods Company have misled consumers by labeling MiO water enhancer as though it contains solely natural flavors. The case contends that Kraft Heinz “willfully conceal[s]” from buyers that at least 18 varieties of MiO contain artificial flavoring chemicals that “simulate the Products’ claimed natural flavors.”

Per the suit, federal and state laws require any artificial flavors found in foods or beverages to be disclosed prominently on a product’s front and back labels. The lawsuit says an artificial flavor is defined by law as “any substance, the function of which is to impart flavor, which is not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf, or similar plant material, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.”

“Defendants’ packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme for these Products is intended to give consumers the false impression that they are buying a premium all-natural product instead of a product that is artificially flavored,” the case says.

According to the lawsuit, artificial dl-malic acid, a synthetic petrochemical, is the primary flavoring agent in MiO, and 16 of 18 MiO products list malic acid as either the first or second ingredient by weight after water. The complaint says that consumers believe each variety of MiO is exclusively made from and flavored with natural flavors since each product label prominently states its characterizing fruit, berry or tea flavor with no indication that it contains artificial flavoring components.

“Defendants, as sophisticated actors in the food and beverage industry, made a conscious choice not to label the Products in accordance with federal and state statutory and common law requirements,” the filing alleges.

The 18 varieties of MiO at issue in the lawsuit include the flavors:

Acai Berry Storm;
Arctic Grape;
Berry Blast;
Berry Grape;
Berry Pomegranate;
Blackberry Raspberry;
Cherry Blackberry;
Cranberry Raspberry;
Fruit Punch;
Mango Peach;
Orange Vanilla;
Orchard Apple;
Strawberry Orange;
Strawberry Pineapple Smash;
Strawberry Watermelon;
Sweet Tea;
Tropical Cherry; and
Tropical Fusion.

The lawsuit looks to represent all U.S. citizens who bought any of the above-listed MiO products on or after January 1, 2014 and until the date a class is certified by the court.

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

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed cancer, endometriosis or reproductive problems after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits