in Newswire Published on March 24, 2022

Totino’s Pizza Rolls Are Misrepresented Since Product Uses Imitation Cheese, Class Action Argues [DISMISSED]

Last Updated on March 7, 2023

Smith v. General Mills Sales, Inc.

Filed: March 23, 2022 ◆§ 1:22-cv-01529

A class action alleges the packaging of Totino’s Pizza Rolls, and even the name of the snack itself, is misleading to consumers.

Defendant(s)

General Mills Sales, Inc.

Law(s)

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

State(s)

Illinois

March 7, 2023 – Totino’s Pizza Rolls Imitation Cheese Class Action Dismissed

The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed without prejudice on March 3, 2023 after a federal judge found that the plaintiff failed to adequately show that the label of Totino’s Pizza Rolls would deceive a reasonable consumer.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

In an 18-page order, United States District Judge Manish S. Shah disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that a reasonable consumer viewing the product’s packaging would expect the pizza rolls to be made with more traditional cheese than imitation cheese based on “dictionary definitions” of pizza.

“None of the dictionary definitions plaintiff offers defines pizza as containing a certain amount of traditional cheese, though,” the judge wrote.

Judge Shah also took issue with the plaintiff’s contention that the product’s label is deceptive because federal regulations require a label to disclose the percentage of cheese a food product contains if a consumer would expect it to contain more real cheese. However, the judge pointed out that federal regulations don’t specify the defining characteristics of pizza.

Even if there was a federally defined “standard of identity” for pizza, and that standard required pizza to contain more real cheese than fake cheese, “a reasonable consumer’s expectations wouldn’t necessarily align with the regulations” given that average consumers are not likely to be aware of the “nuances” of FDA regulations, the judge relayed.

According to Judge Shah, the plaintiff failed to adequately argue that consumers would expect the pizza rolls to contain more traditional cheese than imitation cheese based on the product’s “Cheese Naturally Flavored” label.

“‘Real Cheese’ or ‘100% Cheese’ might be a different story, but plaintiff hasn’t explained why ‘Naturally Flavored’ wouldn’t dispel any expectation of predominantly real cheese that a reasonable consumer might have,” the judge wrote.

Further, Judge Shah disputed the plaintiff’s argument that General Mills was required under federal regulations to disclose the percentage of real cheese in Totino’s Pizzal Rolls on the front of the box, given that front labels need only to reveal the percentage of a food’s “characterizing ingredient.”

“But Smith didn’t buy ‘Cheese Pizza Rolls;’ she bought ‘Pizza Rolls’ with ‘Cheese’ as a ‘Natural[] Flavor[],’ the judge explained. “Cheese therefore wasn’t a characterizing ingredient, and there was no violation of public policy in the failure to disclose the percentage of real cheese.”

Although the plaintiff contested that General Mills violated federal law by failing to disclose the presence of imitation cheese on the product’s front label, the judge pointed out that such a disclosure does not specifically have to be on a product’s front label. The judge said that General Mills is in line with federal regulations by disclosing the presence of imitation cheese on the product’s ingredient list.

The plaintiff has until March 24, 2023 by which to file an amended complaint.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

A proposed class action alleges the packaging of Totino’s Pizza Rolls, and even the name of the snack itself, is misleading to consumers given the cheese used in the product is “almost entirely imitation cheese.”

The 16-page suit contends that the manner in which the snack is represented leads consumers to believe that the pizza rolls contain “a non-de minimis amount” of ingredients associated with pizza, in particular cheese. According to the case, the pizza-centric representations of the Totino’s snack, including the name of the item, are misleading since its characterizing cheese ingredient is imitation mozzarella, as revealed in the product’s ingredients list.

“The small relative and absolute amount of cheese and its replacement with imitation cheese is misleading in light of the Product’s name and cheese representations,” the lawsuit argues.

The case states that the imitation mozzarella cheese in Totino’s pizza rolls is made from “highly processed” ingredients not typically found in cheese made from dairy, including vegetable oils, corn starch and casein. Ultimately, consumers who buy Totino’s pizza rolls receive a “nutritionally inferior food,” the suit says.

According to the suit, federal and identical state regulations require the product’s packaging to disclose the percentage of the characterizing cheese ingredient present in the food. The complaint says that although defendant General Mills Sales, Inc. attempts to disclaim the presence of cheese by including the statement “Naturally Flavored” on product packaging, this is insufficient to overcome what the case calls the product’s “misleading common or usual name.”

“The representations are misleading because the Product’s common or usual name, ‘Pizza In A Golden Crust,’ does not include the percentage of the characterizing cheese ingredient,” the case summarizes, adding that regulations prohibit the use of “natural flavor” to simulate the flavor of cheese.

The lawsuit goes on to argue that reasonable consumers must and do rely on companies to honestly and lawfully market and describe the components and attributes of a product relative to itself and other comparable items or alternatives. Given the prominence of imitation cheese, the value of Totino’s pizza rolls is “less than its value as represented by Defendant,” the case claims.

The lawsuit looks to cover consumers in Illinois, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Alaska and Montana who bought Totino’s pizza rolls within the relevant statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits