DeMaso v. Walmart Inc., 655 F.Supp.3d 696

Plaintiff Eugene DeMaso purchased Walmart’s Great Value “Fudge Mint Cookies” and alleges the front label (the words “Fudge Mint Cookies,” green packaging, and mint-leaf imagery) deceptively implies the product contains actual fudge (i.e., milkfat/dairy) and mint as ingredients.
The product’s ingredient list (as pleaded) shows no milkfat and no literal mint; fat is from vegetable shortening and mint flavor derives from natural/artificial flavor compounds.
DeMaso filed a putative multi-state class action (26 states) asserting violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and similar state statutes, breaches of express and implied warranty, MMWA, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment; he seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.
Walmart moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing the labels are not misleading as a matter of law and that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief.
The court found the front-label terms describe flavors, not ingredient guarantees, concluded a reasonable consumer would not be misled as pleaded, dismissed the ICFA and related claims, dismissed warranty/MMWA and common-law claims tied to the same theory, and dismissed the injunctive claim for lack of standing.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend by February 22, 2023; otherwise dismissal would convert to one with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “fudge” on the front label is deceptive under consumer-protection law	"Fudge" denotes real fudge (containing dairy/milkfat); vegetable shortening in product makes label misleading	"Fudge" can denote a flavor/texture and need not guarantee specific ingredients; not deceptive as a matter of law	Term "fudge" not misleading as pleaded; reasonable consumer would not expect a specific ingredient like milkfat; claim dismissed
Whether “mint” (word, green packaging, mint leaf image) is deceptive	The label and imagery lead consumers to expect actual mint ingredient	The label conveys a mint flavor, not a promise of the ingredient; no affirmative ingredient claim on the front	"Mint" describes flavor, not an ingredient promise; ICFA claim fails
Breach of express/implied warranty and MMWA based on same labeling theory	Front label expressly and impliedly warranted product contained fudge and mint ingredients	Warranty and MMWA claims rise or fall with falsity of the labeling; no actionable affirmation of fact and product is fit for ordinary use	Warranty and MMWA claims dismissed because labeling not false/misleading as pleaded
Standing to seek injunctive relief	Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prevent future deception	Plaintiff is aware of the alleged deception; past exposure without a credible threat of future harm defeats injunctive standing	Injunctive-relief claim dismissed for lack of standing under Article III

Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 982 F.3d 468 (7th Cir. 2020) (articulates reasonable-consumer standard for front-label claims)
Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2020) (reasonable-consumer test for deception)
Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 944 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2019) (consumer-protection statute purpose and standing discussion)
Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of ICFA claim)
Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2014) (injunctive-relief standing principles)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (pleading standard plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (limits on accepting legal conclusions at pleading stage)
Lax v. Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178 (7th Cir. 2021) (procedural standard for evaluating complaints)
Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard)
Vanzant v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., 934 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2019) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud)