EAST ST. LOUIS - A class action alleges Arizona mislabels its "Mucho Mango" juice as being "fortified" but lacks the FDA requirements for vitamin C fortification.
Dawn Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a federal class-action lawsuit on Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Arizona Beverages USA LLC, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment.
According to the lawsuit, Arizona Beverages USA LLC manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mango drinks identified as “Mucho Mango Fruit Cocktail.” Hancock claims the product's label contains representations including “Mucho Mango,” “Fruit Juice Cocktail,” “All Natural,” “VITAMIN C FORTIFIED” and “VITAMIN C FORTIFIED – ANTIOX.” On the back of the product, the ingredients list does not support the claim that it is "fortified" and is not consistent with the FDA's fortification policy. The suit states that a "fortified" product must contain 10 percent more vitamin C than a reference food.
Hancock claims that the false mislabeling of the product is intentional to portray the product as being healthier than it actually is in order to boost sales. Hancock claims that neither he, nor other consumers, would have purchased the product if the labeling had not been false and misleading.
Hancock seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief by directing the defendant to correct the challenged practices to comply with the law, injunctive relief to remove and correct the representations, restitution and disgorgement for members of the class, an award of monetary damages, statutory damages and/or punitive damages, costs and expenses and attorneys and experts fees. Hancock is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC in Great Neck, N.Y.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:21-cv-01735-SMY