CASE NAME: Mikha et al. v. Soofer Co., Inc.
CASE NO.: 3:26-cv-01951-AGS-BJW
JURISDICTION: United States District Court, Southern District of California
FILED ON: March 27, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in the United States who purchased the product labeled “Sadaf Mediterranean Olive Oil Blend” for personal use within the applicable limitations period.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint , plaintiffs allege that Soofer Co., Inc., doing business as Sadaf Foods, deceptively marketed and sold a product labeled “Mediterranean Olive Oil Blend” that in fact contains no olive oil. The lawsuit claims that laboratory testing confirmed the product consists entirely of soybean oil, despite labeling, imagery, and marketing suggesting it is an olive oil blend. Plaintiffs contend that consumers were misled into paying a premium for a product they believed had the qualities and benefits of olive oil. The complaint further alleges violations of California consumer protection laws, false advertising statutes, and common law claims, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Soofer Co., Inc. engaged in a uniform scheme to mislead consumers through the labeling and marketing of its “Mediterranean Olive Oil Blend.” The product label prominently features references to olive oil and imagery of olives, which plaintiffs claim would lead reasonable consumers to believe the product contains olive oil as a primary ingredient. However, according to the complaint, independent laboratory testing using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the product contains no detectable olive oil and is composed entirely of soybean oil.

Plaintiffs assert that this alleged misrepresentation violates California Health and Safety Code § 112895(b), which requires that blended oils be labeled as “mixed vegetable oil” and include disclosure of proportions. The complaint claims the product fails to meet these requirements in three ways: it is not labeled as mixed vegetable oil, it does not disclose the proportions of oils, and it allegedly contains no olive oil despite suggesting otherwise.

The complaint further alleges that Soofer marketed the product online and in retail stores as suitable for cooking, baking, and other culinary uses typically associated with olive oil. Product descriptions, including those on online marketplaces, allegedly describe the oil as being made from “high-quality olives,” reinforcing the impression that olive oil is a key component.

According to the complaint, consumers—including the named plaintiffs—relied on these representations when purchasing the product. The plaintiffs claim they would not have bought the oil, or would have paid less for it, had they known it was entirely soybean oil. One plaintiff reportedly noticed that the taste did not resemble olive oil after use, prompting further investigation.

The lawsuit also references consumer reviews cited in the complaint, which indicate dissatisfaction and confusion among purchasers who believed they were buying an olive oil blend. Plaintiffs argue that these reviews reflect broader consumer deception.

In addition to statutory violations, the complaint alleges causes of action for fraud, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs claim the product was not fit for its ordinary purpose as an olive oil blend and that the defendant profited unfairly from the alleged mislabeling.

The proposed class includes nationwide consumers as well as a California subclass. Plaintiffs seek certification of the class, restitution of monies paid, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent continued sale of the allegedly mislabeled product. Specifically, they request that the defendant be required to relabel the product in compliance with applicable laws and accurately disclose its contents.