Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Kellman et al v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al.
Case Number:
3:17-cv-06584
See also:
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
April 01, 2019
Whole Foods Can't Escape Allergen False Ad Suit
A California magistrate judge has kept alive a suit alleging Whole Foods affiliates have been selling foods containing allergens under a false hypoallergenic label, ruling that the court has jurisdiction because one affiliate runs Whole Foods' website, which serves the state.
-
June 12, 2018
Whole Foods 'Hypoallergenic' False-Ad Suit Greatly Trimmed
In a putative class action brought by two women accusing Whole Foods of mislabeling products as hypoallergenic, a California federal judge Tuesday dismissed, with leave to amend, all of the defendants except for a California subsidiary, all of the claims by one of the women, and several of the named products which the remaining defendant did not herself purchase.
-
April 09, 2018
Whole Foods Wants 'Hypoallergenic' False-Ad Suit Tossed
Whole Foods Market Inc. urged a California federal court Friday to toss a proposed class action over the grocery chain's "hypoallergenic" products, saying the statements on the two products actually purchased in California were not misleading and that the court lacks jurisdiction over most of the allegations anyway.