CASE NAME: Shorley v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 26STCV21913
JURISDICTION: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
FILED ON: July 12, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in California who purchased Whole Foods “Protein & Fiber” granola products for personal or household use during the applicable class period

SUMMARY:
Whole Foods Market and related entities are accused of misleading consumers by marketing their “Honey Almond Flax Protein & Fiber Crunch” granola as a healthy, protein- and fiber-rich product while allegedly failing to adequately disclose its high sugar content. The lawsuit claims that the packaging and labeling create a “health halo” by emphasizing protein, fiber, and omega-3 benefits, despite the product allegedly containing more sugar than both protein and fiber. The plaintiff contends that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium for what they believed to be a nutritious product.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Whole Foods engaged in a deceptive marketing strategy by prominently displaying claims such as “good source of protein,” high fiber percentages, and omega-3 content on the front of its granola packaging. According to the complaint, these claims are designed to attract health-conscious consumers and suggest that the product supports overall wellness.

However, the plaintiff contends that these representations are misleading because the product’s primary ingredient is sugar. The complaint states that each serving contains approximately 14 grams of sugar, compared to 10 grams of protein and 9 grams of fiber—meaning the product has about 40% more sugar than protein and nearly 50% more sugar than fiber.

According to the complaint, this imbalance contradicts the product’s branding as a “protein & fiber” granola and undermines its purported health benefits. The lawsuit alleges that reasonable consumers would not expect a product marketed this way to contain such high levels of sugar.

The plaintiff further alleges that Whole Foods reinforces this misleading impression through omissions and presentation. While protein and fiber claims are prominently displayed in large, bold text, information about sugar content is allegedly less noticeable and not emphasized in the same way. This labeling design, according to the complaint, prevents consumers from fully understanding the product’s nutritional profile at the point of purchase.

The complaint also references health guidelines, noting that a single serving of the product contains around 13 grams of added sugar, which represents a significant portion of the recommended daily intake. According to the lawsuit, excessive sugar consumption is associated with health risks such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Whole Foods made misleading comparisons to competitor products by claiming similar protein and fiber levels without disclosing that its product contains more sugar than those alternatives.

The plaintiff claims that Whole Foods was aware that consumers prioritize protein and fiber when making purchasing decisions and used this knowledge to increase sales through misleading labeling. The complaint cites market research indicating strong consumer demand for high-protein foods and alleges that the company capitalized on this trend.

As a result of these alleged misrepresentations, the plaintiff contends that consumers were misled into purchasing the product and suffered economic harm by paying more than they otherwise would have. The complaint states that consumers would not have purchased the product—or would have paid less—had they known its true nutritional composition.

The lawsuit brings claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, among others. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and corrective advertising to address the alleged deceptive practices.