Class action lawsuit for hundreds of millions approved against Golda ice cream
The company marketed ice creams as "sugar-free" when in fact they contained 13 times more sugar than allowed. The total damage to the group members was estimated by the plaintiff at approximately 350 million shekels. The group includes everyone who purchased ice cream labeled "sugar-free" in the last seven years, in branches or online.
The Central District Court in Lod has approved a class action lawsuit against Anita Glida Ltd., the company that operates the Golda ice cream chain. The lawsuit alleges that the chain marketed ice creams under the label "sugar-free" while they actually contained sugar.
Court rejects Golda's claim that the label is not misleading
According to laboratory tests attached to the filing, ice creams labeled "sugar-free" in hazelnut and coffee flavors contained approximately 6.6 grams of lactose sugar per 100 grams. This is 13.2 times the threshold set by regulations, which permit a "sugar-free" label only for products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams.
The court rejected the chain's argument that a reasonable consumer understands "sugar-free" in dairy ice cream to mean "no added sugar." The judge determined that the plaintiff's interpretation—that the label is misleading—is reasonable. Furthermore, the court noted that the chain failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why it chose an absolute label when alternatives like "no added sugar" were available.
"There is a basis to believe that sugar content is a material matter for a consumer purchasing ice cream labeled 'sugar-free'," the judge noted. She added that the claim of consumer deception is valid for further litigation, as many customers purchased the product under the impression that it was truly sugar-free.
Estimated damages: 300 shekels per group member
The lawsuit was approved on grounds of consumer deception, breach of statutory duty (including violation of Israeli Standard 327), negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court approved claims for a permanent injunction against the "sugar-free" labeling, full refunds for group members, and compensation for non-pecuniary damages, estimated at 300 shekels per person.
The class includes customers of the Golda and Anita chains who purchased products labeled "sugar-free" in the last seven years, both in-store and online. Following the filing, the chain temporarily removed these items from its product line. The court also ordered the chain to pay 40,000 shekels plus VAT in legal fees for this stage of the proceedings.
"Words in advertising are not a marketing decoration"
Advocate Or Yarkoni, representing the plaintiff, stated: "A consumer should not have to interpret or correct an explicit commercial representation presented by a business. When a business writes 'sugar-free' on a product, it takes responsibility for the fact that these words reflect reality. Consumer law places the responsibility for accuracy and clarity on the party formulating the representation and deriving commercial benefit from it."
Advocate Ori Eldar added: "The decision sends a clear message to the food industry: whoever writes 'sugar-free' on a product must stand behind those words literally. We will continue to manage the case with the goal of securing full restitution for the group members."
