CASE NAME: Yuryeva v. PataFoods, Inc.
CASE NO.: 2:26-cv-04037
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Central District of California
FILED ON: April 15, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in the United States who purchased Amara Organic Smoothie Melts for personal use during the applicable statutory period, with a California subclass.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint , PataFoods, Inc., doing business as Amara Organic Foods, is accused of misleading consumers by marketing its Smoothie Melts as “yogurt” or “plant-based yogurt” products despite allegedly lacking yogurt cultures, probiotics, or other characteristics typically associated with yogurt. The lawsuit claims that consumers rely on yogurt-related labeling to infer nutritional and probiotic benefits and that the defendant’s representations led consumers to pay a premium for products that do not meet those expectations.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that PataFoods manufactures and sells Amara Organic Smoothie Melts in multiple flavors, marketing them prominently as “Yogurt Smoothie Melts,” “Plant-Based Yogurt Snack,” and similar terms. As shown in product images on page 5 of the complaint, the packaging repeatedly emphasizes yogurt-related language as a central part of the product’s identity and marketing.

According to the complaint, these representations are false and misleading because the products are not actually yogurt and do not contain yogurt cultures or probiotic ingredients. The lawsuit asserts that yogurt is commonly understood by consumers to be a cultured food made using live bacteria cultures that provide digestive and nutritional benefits. The plaintiff claims that reasonable consumers expect both traditional and plant-based yogurt products to contain such culturing elements.

The complaint further alleges that the products are instead uncultured fruit- and vegetable-based melts that use yogurt terminology to capitalize on the perceived health benefits associated with yogurt. On page 6 of the complaint, it is stated that the products do not include yogurt cultures, probiotics, or any ingredients that would provide the characteristics typically associated with yogurt.

The plaintiff also points to the defendant’s own marketing and public statements, which allegedly reinforce consumer expectations about yogurt. For example, the complaint cites statements from the company’s blog explaining that dairy-free yogurts are “full of probiotics” and describing probiotics or live cultures as essential components of yogurt. These statements, according to the lawsuit, strengthen the impression that products labeled as yogurt—whether dairy or plant-based—contain such beneficial ingredients.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant intentionally used yogurt-related claims to appeal to health-conscious consumers, including parents seeking nutritious snack options for children. The labeling includes statements such as “A Yogurt Melt you can Trust,” which the plaintiff claims further misleads consumers into believing the products deliver the benefits of yogurt.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, alleges that she purchased multiple flavors of the products relying on these representations. She claims that she would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had she known they did not contain yogurt cultures or probiotics. As a result, the lawsuit alleges that she and other consumers suffered economic injury in the form of a price premium.

On behalf of a nationwide class and a California subclass, the plaintiff brings claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. The complaint alleges that the defendant’s conduct constitutes false advertising, deceptive business practices, and material omissions.

The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and corrective advertising. Specifically, the lawsuit requests that the court require the defendant to stop using allegedly misleading yogurt-related claims and to accurately label its products. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and other relief deemed appropriate.

At the center of the case is whether labeling a product as “yogurt” without including yogurt cultures or probiotic ingredients constitutes a materially misleading representation to reasonable consumers.

Tell us what you think about this complaint.