Crosner Legal is proud to announce a significant procedural victory in the consumer class action case Taylor et al. v. Walmart Inc., in which the Court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss seven causes of action, allowing the case to proceed. The litigation centers on allegations that Walmart deceptively labeled its “Great Value Macaroni & Cheese Original Microwavable Cup” as containing “No artificial flavors” and “No artificial preservatives,” despite the presence of citric acid, which plaintiffs allege is an artificially manufactured ingredient.
The case, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Kaitlyn Taylor and Justin Alicea, challenges Walmart’s marketing of the product under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL), among other state and common law claims. Plaintiffs argue that the use of industrially manufactured citric acid, commonly produced through fermentation involving Aspergillus niger, renders the product’s labeling false and misleading. Citing FDA communications, scientific literature, and consumer expectations around health-oriented marketing claims, plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased the product—or would have paid less—had they known the truth about its ingredients.
On June 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss. Crucially, the Court upheld plaintiffs’ standing to sue, including under Article III and the CLRA, finding that they sufficiently alleged economic injury from the misleading labels. The Court also found that plaintiffs had plausibly stated claims under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL, concluding that reasonable consumers could indeed be misled by Walmart’s front-label statements.
Further, the Court sustained plaintiffs’ breach of express and implied warranty claims, as well as their fraud-based causes of action for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The ruling emphasized that the labeling—promising no artificial ingredients—was in direct contradiction to the inclusion of citric acid as alleged to be artificial in nature. While the Court did grant Walmart’s request to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief—citing plaintiffs’ ability to now avoid future harm by reading ingredient labels—it declined to grant Walmart’s broader effort to dismiss the lawsuit.
This victory is a testament to the diligence and expertise of attorney Lilach Halperin, who spearheaded the case on behalf of Crosner Legal. The ruling allows plaintiffs and the putative class to proceed in seeking accountability and consumer redress from one of the nation’s largest retailers. It reinforces Crosner Legal’s commitment to protecting consumers from misleading food labeling and corporate practices that prioritize marketing over transparency.
To learn more about our ongoing consumer protection work and legal victories, please visit us at www.crosnerlegal.com.
This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.