In Trammell v. KLN Enterprises, Inc., No. 24-6097 (9th Cir. May 15, 2026), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action against KLN Enterprises, Inc., the manufacturer of the Wiley Wallaby Very Berry Licorice product, in which the consumer alleged violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The suit arose from KLN’s front- and back-label claim that the product was free of artificial colors and flavors and was naturally flavored, despite the product allegedly containing DL malic acid, an artificial form of malic acid derived from a petroleum substrate rather than natural fruit sources. The plaintiff alleged that laboratory testing established that the malic acid used in the product was DL malic acid. On the basis of those test results, the plaintiff claimed that KLN’s “no artificial flavors” label representation was false and misleading to consumers. The district court dismissed the complaint on two grounds, holding both that the plaintiff had failed to plead with sufficient particularity that the malic acid was artificial under Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard, and that the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the product’s labeling. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the detailed laboratory testing evidence was sufficient to satisfy both standards.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that the consumer plausibly plead the presence of an artificial flavor in the product which was sufficient to satisfy the reasonable consumer standard at the pleading stage. The court found that the ingredients list did not cure the front-label representation because it did not disclose which of the listed ingredients were artificial, a determination a reasonable consumer, not being a chemist, cannot make at the point of purchase, particularly when the front label prominently claimed the product was free of artificial flavors. Second, the court held that the absence of an “all natural” or “100% natural” claim on the label was irrelevant because the plaintiff’s claim was a targeted one directed specifically at the “free of artificial flavors” representation. Third, the court rejected the reasoning that a reasonable consumer would not expect a brightly colored, shelf-stable licorice candy to be free of artificial ingredients, noting that coloring and shelf stability bear on the artificiality of colorants and preservatives, not flavors. Fourth, the court declined to import FDA regulatory classifications into the reasonable consumer analysis, reasoning that the inquiry is based on what a reasonable consumer expects, not how the industry classifies an ingredient.
This decision is particularly instructive because “no artificial flavor” class actions have been so pervasive, and following this decision it is unlikely that the class action bar will lose interest in this type of litigation.
*Janine Liu is a summer associate in the firm's San Francisco office.