Walmart: Great Value Stevia Lawsuit Alleges Erythritol Deception

• Walmart is being sued in a class action over its Great Value stevia sweeteners, alleging false advertising.
• The lawsuit claims the products are primarily sweetened with erythritol, not stevia extract, despite prominent labeling.
• Independent lab tests found Great Value stevia products contained high percentages of erythritol and only trace amounts of stevia extract.
• Plaintiff Lee Ann Winter alleges consumers are misled into paying more and face potential health risks from erythritol.
• The proposed class includes hundreds of thousands of California residents who purchased the products within the last four years.

For companies, this case serves as a stark reminder that even if ingredients are listed on the back, prominent marketing claims must align with the product's primary components.

Walmart is currently facing a proposed class action lawsuit concerning the labeling of its Great Value brand stevia sweeteners. Filed on October 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint, titled Lee Ann Winter v Walmart, alleges false advertising and violations of state consumer protection laws against the retail giant.

The core of the accusation is that Walmart misleads consumers by marketing its Great Value stevia products as primarily containing stevia extract, when in fact, they are predominantly sweetened with erythritol. Plaintiff Lee Ann Winter contends that prominent front-of-package displays, such as "Stevia," "made with Stevia Extract," and "No Calorie," create a deceptive impression that stevia is the main sweetening agent.

Independent laboratory testing, commissioned by Winter's legal team, revealed significant discrepancies in the product composition. The Great Value No Calorie Stevia Packets, sold in an 80-count package, were found to contain 94.44% erythritol, with only trace amounts of rebiana, a stevia leaf extract. Similarly, the Great Value No Calorie Stevia Sweetener Sugar Substitute, offered in a 9.8-ounce package, consisted of 59.12% erythritol, with the remaining bulk made up of dextrose and maltodextrin, and again, only trace levels of rebiana. Winter, who purchased these products from Walmart stores in California every one to two months over the past three years, often buying 200-count packets, asserts she would not have made these purchases had she been aware of their actual primary sweetener.

The lawsuit, an erythritol stevia labeling class action, argues that while erythritol is listed among the ingredients, the absence of quantitative disclosure for the primary sweeteners, coupled with the prominent "Stevia" branding, constitutes a deceptive trade practice. This alleged misrepresentation, according to the complaint, causes consumers to pay more for products they believe are primarily stevia-based and to make misinformed purchasing decisions.

Attorney Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Kamberlaw, representing Winter, estimates that the proposed class could include hundreds of thousands of consumers. The class is defined as California residents who purchased the Great Value stevia products within the four years preceding the lawsuit's filing. This case underscores the rigorous scrutiny food labeling practices face under consumer protection laws, particularly when products make claims related to natural ingredients or health benefits, as seen in this false advertising California stevia dispute.

This Walmart Great Value stevia lawsuit highlights the critical importance of transparent and accurate food labeling for both manufacturers and retailers. Consumers frequently rely on front-of-package claims to inform their purchasing choices, and any perceived misalignment between these claims and the product's actual composition can lead to substantial legal and reputational challenges.

Beyond the financial implications of consumers potentially overpaying, the lawsuit also raises health concerns. It cites research suggesting potential links between erythritol consumption and cardiovascular risks, as well as digestive issues. For companies, this case serves as a stark reminder that even if all ingredients are technically listed on the back of the package, prominent marketing claims on the front must truthfully reflect the product's primary components. The potential for a large-scale class action, encompassing hundreds of thousands of consumers, demonstrates the significant financial and reputational risks associated with perceived misleading food labeling practices, particularly for products like the Great Value No Calorie Stevia lawsuit.

Compliance officers and legal counsel for food and beverage companies should review product labeling for accuracy, particularly for 'natural' or health-related claims, to ensure primary ingredients are clearly and truthfully represented, especially when trace amounts of a marketed ingredient are present alongside significant quantities of other sweeteners. This case highlights the risk of class action litigation for misleading ingredient disclosures, even if the ingredients are listed elsewhere on the packaging.

Source: Original reporting via Associated Press and Courthouse News Service.