class action

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Are King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls Really Made in Hawaii?

That’s the issue raised in a new lawsuit filed by two consumers who said they were misled into believing that King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls were manufactured in Hawaii.

*MOUSE PRINT:

King's Hawaiian

These rolls were first made in Hawaii in the 1950s, and eventually they became so popular that tourists would take them back home, or those on the mainland with friends in Hawaii would ask them to send some.

The consumers who have filed the lawsuit say that it was not only the packaging that gave them the impression that these buns came from Hilo, Hawaii, but language on the website that says the company will send the product to the “mainland” (continental US) for free:

King's mainland claim

There are many local and national brand knockoffs of King’s Hawaiian sweet rolls but these consumers paid a premium price which they would not have done but for the fact that they thought they were getting the real thing from Hawaii.

All is not totally sunny in this case for the plaintiffs, however. There is nothing explicitly on the package or on the website that says these buns are “made in Hawaii.” In fact, when reading the history of the company on their website or looking at the back of the package, one learns that their bakery is in Torrance, California.

So, how do you think a judge will rule? Will he or she side with the consumers or declare their claims to be half-baked?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Neuriva Brain Supplement Is Not “Proven”

Remember this commercial for Neuriva, a recently introduced brain supplement?


The claims in it that Neuriva has “clinically proven ingredients that fuel five indicators of brain performance” became part of a class action lawsuit against the company. The complaint asserted that Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of Neuriva, lacked scientific proof that the product really improves brain functioning.

A review of the relevant scientific literature shows that no valid scientific or clinical evidence exists regarding how much, if any, of Neuriva’s key ingredients reaches the brain. Because of this lack of evidence, Defendants’ claims that Neuriva’s ingredients are scientifically and clinically proven to benefit the brain or enhance brain performance are patently false, as well as are Defendants’ claims that Neuriva has been scientifically proven to be effective. Indeed, no publicly available study of Neuriva exists, and Plaintiffs have found no indication that Neuriva’s efficacy has ever been studied or tested.

The company denied the charges but nonetheless subsequently entered into a proposed settlement agreement which calls for full or partial refunds to consumers and a change in the claims the company makes on the packaging and in advertising. [Purchasers can file a claim here, although the settlement is not finalized yet.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

Neuriva old and new

Put simply, the company agreed to change the word “proven” to “tested” along with other minor wording changes, but only for a period of two years. Frankly, whether it says “clinically proven” or “clinically tested” I think most consumers will still come away with the same net impression that there is reliable scientific evidence backing up the brain performance claims. The proposed settlement has also come under fire from other consumer advocates and court watchers.

The product’s TV advertising has changed already. They now have Miyam Bialik, the actress best known for her roles on Blossom and The Big Bang Theory, and as the future host of Jeopardy!, vouching for the product. What qualifies her for this role? She got her doctorate in neuroscience. Now the company uses that fact to also claim that the product is “neuroscientist approved.”


One thing that hasn’t changed is a disclaimer on the side of the Neuriva package.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Neuriva disclaimer

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can Crest Toothpaste Really Repair Your Gums?

In 2021, at least five lawsuits have been filed against Procter & Gamble claiming that Crest Gum & Enamel Repair toothpaste is being deceptively marketed. [Suit #1, suit #2 pre-amendment, and suit #3]

Crest Gum and Enamel Repair

The lawyers contend that this Crest toothpaste cannot “repair” gums.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Allegations from some of the cases…

…gums that have suffered structural damage cannot be repaired, restored, or re-grown through use of the Product. The only way to repair gums is through periodontal treatment, including cosmetic dental surgery such as gum grafting.

…receding gums do not grow back; once the gum tissue has pulled back and away from teeth, it’s gone for good.

…the Product’s active ingredient –Stannous Fluoride .454% (.14% W/V Fluoride Ion) – which is common to most toothpastes, provides no special gum “repair” benefits.

With respect to gum care, all a toothpaste can really do is control, reduce, or prevent gingivitis by helping to remove plaque. Gingivitis is a common and mild form of gum disease that causes irritation, redness and swelling where your gum meets the base of your teeth.

So the lawyers claim that purchasers have been misled, would not have bought the product, or would have paid less than the premium price that P&G charges had they known the true nature of this toothpaste to start with.

P&G presumably denies the charges but best we can tell, P&G has not formally filed answers to the complaints yet.

One of the lawyers predicts what one of P&G’s defenses might be and he makes a pre-emptive grammatical argument against it. He expects P&G to say that in the phrase “Gum and Enamel Repair” that the word “gum” does not modify the word “Repair.” In essence, he’s suggesting that P&G will likely claim this is a “gum toothpaste” and an “enamel repair toothpaste.” The consumer lawyer says the name of the product follows normal parallel structure and most consumers would understand it to mean the product is for “gum repair” and “enamel repair.”.

What do you think? Do these cases have any teeth?