ConAgra’s Parkay Spray

August 2020: A federal judge granted ConAgra’s motion for summary judgment concluding that the claims are preempted by federal law.

September 2018: Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint bringing similar allegations.

August 2017: After the appeal in Jones was voluntarily dismissed, the parties agreed to continue the stay in this case pending a decision in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving ConAgra Foods (Briseño v. ConAgra Foods).

February 2015: This case was stayed pending a decision in another case involving ConAgra Foods in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Jones v. ConAgra.

January 2015: A federal judge refused to certify the class in this false advertising lawsuit because, among other things, the plaintiff did not present a way to identify class members, did not sufficiently explain how to apply the method of measuring damages to the facts of this case, and did not show that common questions would predominate.

March 2013: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc. for allegedly deceptively labeling and marketing its Parkay Spray as having “0 fat” and “0 calories” when, according to plaintiffs, the spray, which contains 832 calories and 93 grams of fat per bottle, is neither fat free nor calorie free. (Allen et al v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01279, N.D. Cal.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against ConAgra Foods and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags:



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates