CASE NAME: Archer v. Love Corn USA, Inc.
CASE NO.: Not specified
JURISDICTION: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
FILED ON: July 12, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in California who purchased Love Corn “Sour Cream & Onion” products for personal use since February 5, 2021

SUMMARY:
Love Corn USA, Inc. is accused of falsely marketing its “Sour Cream & Onion” corn snack products as containing “0g added sugar” despite allegedly including sugar as an ingredient. The lawsuit claims that this discrepancy between the nutrition label and ingredient list misleads consumers into believing the product is a healthier, sugar-free snack. The plaintiff alleges that consumers relied on these representations and paid a premium for what they believed to be a no-added-sugar product, when in reality it contained added sugar.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Love Corn USA engaged in a deceptive labeling and marketing scheme by prominently advertising its snack products as containing “0g added sugar.” According to the complaint, this claim appears on the product’s nutritional panel and is emphasized as part of the product’s health-focused branding.

However, the plaintiff contends that the product’s ingredient list directly contradicts this claim by listing “sugar” as a component. The complaint asserts that under federal regulations, any sugar added during processing qualifies as “added sugar,” meaning the product cannot accurately be labeled as containing zero added sugars.

The lawsuit further alleges that this inconsistency renders the product “misbranded” under both federal and California law. According to the complaint, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and California’s Sherman Law prohibit labeling that is false or misleading in any respect. By presenting conflicting information between the nutrition panel and ingredient list, the defendant allegedly violates these standards.

The plaintiff claims that the misleading labeling is part of a broader marketing strategy designed to capitalize on consumer demand for healthier, low-sugar foods. The complaint references consumer trends showing that individuals are willing to pay more for products perceived as healthier, particularly those marketed as sugar-free or low in carbohydrates.

According to the complaint, Love Corn USA understood that “no added sugar” claims are material to consumers’ purchasing decisions and deliberately emphasized these claims across product packaging and marketing materials. The plaintiff alleges that reasonable consumers would interpret “0g added sugar” to mean that no sugar was added during manufacturing, and would not expect to find sugar listed among the ingredients.

The lawsuit also alleges that the way the product labeling is presented contributes to consumer deception. Specifically, the nutrition panel—which states “0g added sugar”—is more prominent and easier to read than the ingredient list, which allegedly uses smaller font and is less noticeable. As a result, consumers may rely on the nutrition claim without scrutinizing the ingredient list.

The plaintiff claims she purchased the product believing it contained no added sugar and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had she known the true composition. The complaint alleges that consumers were economically harmed because they did not receive the product they believed they were purchasing.

The lawsuit brings claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and an order requiring corrective advertising and accurate labeling going forward.