CASE NAME: Williams et al. v. Target Corporation
CASE NO.: 3:26-cv-02534-H-BLM
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
FILED ON: April 21, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in the United States who purchased Up&Up Ashwagandha Gummies for personal use during the applicable statute of limitations, including a California subclass.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, Target Corporation is facing a proposed class action alleging that its Up&Up Ashwagandha Gummies are misleadingly labeled regarding dosage. The lawsuit claims the product prominently advertises “300 mg ashwagandha” on the front label, leading consumers to believe each gummy contains that amount. However, plaintiffs allege that consumers must take two gummies to achieve the advertised dosage, meaning each gummy contains only half the stated amount. The complaint contends that this alleged misrepresentation caused consumers to overpay for the product and violates multiple consumer protection laws.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Target markets and sells Up&Up Ashwagandha Gummies with misleading dosage representations on its packaging. As shown in the product images on page 4 of the complaint, the front label prominently states “300 mg ashwagandha” alongside a count of 60 gummies, which plaintiffs claim leads reasonable consumers to believe that each gummy contains 300 mg of ashwagandha.

According to the complaint, this representation is false. Instead, the supplement facts panel indicates that the advertised 300 mg dosage applies to a serving size of two gummies, not a single gummy. As a result, each individual gummy allegedly contains only half of the advertised dosage. Plaintiffs claim this discrepancy is not clearly disclosed on the front label, creating a misleading impression about the potency of each unit.

The complaint further alleges that this labeling practice causes consumers to overestimate the value of the product. Because consumers believe they are receiving 300 mg per gummy, they are effectively paying a premium price for what is, according to the lawsuit, only half the expected dosage per unit. Plaintiffs contend that had they known the true dosage per gummy, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less.

The lawsuit highlights that dosage information is a key factor influencing consumer purchasing decisions in the dietary supplement market. As described in the complaint, the supplement industry is highly competitive, and companies often promote higher dosages to attract consumers. Plaintiffs allege that Target exploited this dynamic by presenting the product as having a higher per-gummy dosage than it actually delivers.

The complaint also compares the product to competitors, noting that other supplement manufacturers either accurately state dosage per unit or clearly disclose when dosage applies per serving rather than per individual gummy. For example, as referenced on pages 6 and 7, some competing products list dosage per capsule or explicitly indicate “per serving” on the front label. Plaintiffs allege that Target deviated from these industry practices in a way that misleads consumers.

Plaintiffs Janice Williams and Michael Smith state that they purchased the product in California in 2025 and relied on the front-label dosage representation in making their purchasing decisions. They claim they were unaware that two gummies were required to achieve the advertised dosage and that they suffered economic injury as a result.

The lawsuit further alleges that Target knew or should have known that the labeling was misleading, and that it intentionally used these representations to increase sales and gain a competitive advantage. Plaintiffs assert that the company’s conduct constitutes deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices.

Based on these allegations, the complaint brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, and other remedies on behalf of a nationwide class and California subclass.

Tell us what you think.