CASE NAME: Alexander Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co.
CASE NO.: Not specified
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
FILED ON: May 14, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in New York who purchased Smucker’s Sugar Free Hot Fudge Spoonable Topping for personal or household use during the applicable class period.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, The J.M. Smucker Co. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that it falsely markets its Smucker’s Sugar Free Hot Fudge Spoonable Topping as “Sweetened with Splenda.” The lawsuit claims this representation misleads consumers into believing Splenda is the primary sweetener, when in fact the product is בעיקר sweetened with other sugar substitutes such as maltitol syrup, glycerin, and sorbitol. The plaintiff alleges that consumers were deceived into purchasing the product and paying a premium based on this representation.

ALLEGATIONS:
The complaint alleges that Smucker prominently labels its sugar-free hot fudge topping with the claim “Sweetened with Splenda,” which appears clearly on the front of the packaging (see product image on page 3). This statement, according to the lawsuit, conveys to reasonable consumers that Splenda (sucralose) is the main sweetening ingredient in the product.

However, the plaintiff contends that this representation is false and misleading. According to the complaint, ingredient labeling rules require ingredients to be listed in descending order by weight. In the product at issue, Splenda (listed as sucralose) appears as the last ingredient and only in minimal quantities under the category “contains 2% or less of.” In contrast, the primary ingredients listed are maltitol syrup, glycerin, and sorbitol—each of which functions as a sweetener.

The lawsuit alleges that these alternative sweeteners differ significantly from Splenda in terms of health effects and consumer expectations. According to the complaint, maltitol syrup and sorbitol are sugar alcohols that can cause digestive issues such as bloating, gas, and diarrhea, while glycerin may also cause gastrointestinal discomfort and other side effects. The product itself includes a warning that excessive consumption may have a laxative effect due to these ingredients, reinforcing their prominence in the formulation.

The plaintiff further alleges that consumers prefer Splenda because it is marketed as a zero-calorie sweetener that does not significantly impact blood sugar levels and is generally better tolerated. By emphasizing Splenda on the label, the defendant allegedly capitalizes on these consumer preferences while downplaying the presence of less desirable sweeteners.

According to the complaint, the “Sweetened with Splenda” claim is material to consumers’ purchasing decisions, particularly for those seeking healthier or lower-impact sugar alternatives. The plaintiff contends that consumers are unlikely to scrutinize the ingredient list in detail and instead rely on prominent front-label claims when selecting products.

The complaint also alleges that the defendant intentionally used this labeling strategy to increase sales and charge a premium price. The plaintiff claims that he relied on the representation when purchasing the product and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had he known that Splenda was not the primary sweetener.

As a result, the lawsuit alleges that consumers suffered economic harm by overpaying for a product that did not match their expectations. The complaint asserts claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive practices and false advertising, as well as breach of express warranty. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other remedies on behalf of himself and similarly situated consumers.