Class action lawsuit of hundreds of millions of shekels approved against Golda ice cream chain
The Central District Court has approved a class action against the Golda chain for marketing ice cream as "sugar-free" despite it containing significant amounts of sugar. The estimated damages for the class, which includes all customers who purchased these products over the past seven years, reach approximately 350 million shekels.
The Central District Court in Lod has approved a class action lawsuit against Anita Glida Ltd., the operator of the Golda ice cream chain, over allegations that the chain marketed ice cream labeled as "sugar-free" while it actually contained sugar.
The court rejected Golda's defense that the labeling was not misleading. Laboratory tests attached to the lawsuit revealed that ice cream flavors labeled "sugar-free" (hazelnut and coffee) contained approximately 6.6 grams of lactose sugar per 100 grams. This is 13.2 times the regulatory threshold, which permits the "sugar-free" label only for products containing less than 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams.
The court determined that the plaintiff's interpretation—that the labeling is misleading—is reasonable. The judge noted that the chain failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for choosing such absolute labeling when alternatives like "no added sugar" were available. The court emphasized that sugar content is a material factor for consumers, particularly those purchasing from an ice cream parlor where most products are not sugar-free.
The lawsuit is based on claims of consumer deception under the Consumer Protection Law, breach of statutory duty, violation of Israeli standard 327, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting the chain from using the "sugar-free" label, full refunds, and compensation for non-pecuniary damages, estimated at 300 shekels per class member.
The certified class includes all customers of the Golda and/or Anita chains who purchased products labeled "sugar-free" over the last seven years, either in-store or online. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the chain temporarily removed these products from its menu. The court ordered the chain to pay 40,000 shekels plus VAT in attorney's fees for this stage of the proceedings.
Advocate Or Yarkoni, representing the plaintiff, stated: "A consumer should not have to interpret or correct explicit commercial representations. When a business writes 'sugar-free', it assumes responsibility for the accuracy of those words. This court decision serves as a reminder that advertising is not merely marketing decoration, but information that directly influences a person's health and purchasing decisions."
