The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's order certifying two state-based class actions against Nestlé USA, Inc., in a case challenging the company's chocolate product labeling practices. The ruling, issued Jan. 9, allows consumers to proceed as a class in alleging that Nestlé's sustainability claims were deceptive.
Marie Falcone filed the lawsuit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Nestlé USA, Inc. The case, *Falcone v. Nestle USA, Inc.* (9th Cir. 2026), centers on allegations that the chocolate manufacturer used misleading package labeling on its products.
According to the complaint, Nestlé marketed its chocolate products as "sustainably" or "responsibly" sourced, creating the impression that the products were manufactured without child labor and without contributing to deforestation. The plaintiffs argue these claims constituted false advertising under California law.
The lawsuit asserts violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. These statutes provide consumers with legal remedies when companies engage in unfair business practices or deceptive advertising. The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts, while the CLRA specifically addresses deceptive practices in consumer transactions.
Nestlé challenged the district court's decision to certify the classes, but the Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's ruling. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, with Judge M. James Lorenz presiding, originally granted class certification for both an injunctive relief class and what appears to be a damages class.
The appeals court applied the standard established in *Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC* (9th Cir. 2022), which governs review of class certification orders. Under this precedent, appellate courts review district court class certification decisions for abuse of discretion, giving considerable deference to the trial court's analysis.
The case highlights growing scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims, particularly in the food industry. Consumer protection advocates have increasingly challenged what they view as "greenwashing" - marketing practices that make products appear more environmentally and socially responsible than they actually are.
Chocolate production has been particularly scrutinized for labor practices in cocoa-growing regions. Multiple reports over the years have documented the use of child labor in cocoa farms, particularly in West Africa where much of the world's cocoa is produced. Companies have faced pressure from consumers, advocacy groups, and regulators to ensure their supply chains are free from such practices.
The Ninth Circuit's decision was not unanimous. Judge Clifton wrote in dissent, though the specific grounds for his disagreement were not detailed in the available portions of the opinion. The case was argued and submitted on Nov. 19, 2025, in Pasadena, California, before Judges Clifton, Bybee, and de Alba.
The court's ruling is designated as a memorandum disposition that is "not appropriate for publication" and does not serve as precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. This designation means the decision applies specifically to this case but does not create binding precedent for future cases.
For Nestlé, the ruling means the company will face the lawsuit as a class action rather than individual cases, potentially increasing both the scope of potential liability and settlement pressure. Class actions allow plaintiffs to pool resources and present unified claims, making it more practical to pursue cases that might not be economically viable on an individual basis.
The district court certified the injunctive relief class, which suggests plaintiffs are seeking court orders requiring Nestlé to change its labeling practices rather than, or in addition to, monetary damages. Injunctive relief in consumer protection cases often focuses on stopping allegedly deceptive practices and requiring more accurate disclosures.
The case reflects broader trends in consumer litigation targeting corporate marketing claims about environmental and social responsibility. Courts have shown increasing willingness to allow such cases to proceed when plaintiffs can demonstrate that reasonable consumers might be misled by sustainability-related marketing.
The litigation began in 2019 in the Southern District of California and has been working its way through the court system. With class certification now affirmed on appeal, the case will return to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of the underlying false advertising claims.
Nestlé has not publicly commented on the ruling. The company will likely need to decide whether to seek further appellate review or proceed to defend the case on its merits. The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction over the appeal stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which allow immediate appeals of class certification decisions.