DREYER’S GRAND ICE CREAM, INC.

This is a class action on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.’s “All Natural” Ice Cream products containing alkalized cocoa processed with potassium carbonate, a man-made, synthetic ingredient, beginning June 14, 2007 through the present (“Class Period”).  Since at least 2007, DGIC has packaged, marketed and sold its Ice Cream products as being “All Natural” despite the fact they contain alkalized cocoa processed with a non-natural, man-made, synthetic ingredient – potassium carbonate.[1] 

Throughout the Class Period, DGIC prominently makes the claim “All Natural” on the labels of its Ice Cream products, cultivating a wholesome and healthful image in an effort to promote the sale of these products, even though its Ice Cream products were actually not “All Natural.”  While the “All Natural” Ice Cream products’ labels did disclose they contained alkalized cocoa, the labels did not disclose that the alkalized cocoa was processed with a non-natural, man-made, synthetic ingredient – potassium carbonate.  This is a significant omission since alkalized cocoa alternatively can be (and commonly is) processed with a natural ingredient such as sodium carbonate.  In light of the Ice Cream labels’ “All Natural” representation and the availability of natural processing ingredients for alkalized cocoa, a reasonably prudent consumer would certainly not normally expect the alkalized cocoa in DGIC’s Ice Cream products to be processed with a man-made synthetic ingredient.  Indeed, as a result of this false and misleading labeling, DGIC was able to sell these purportedly “All Natural” products to thousands of unsuspecting consumers in California and throughout the United States and to profit handsomely from these transactions.

Plaintiff alleges DGIC’s conduct gives rise to common law fraud, violates the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent prongs of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. (the “UCL”), and violates California’s Business and Professions Code section 17500 et. seq. (the “FAL”).  Plaintiff also alleges that DGIC’s conduct is grounds for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.