{"id":2441,"date":"2025-09-26T17:51:12","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T21:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2441"},"modified":"2025-09-26T17:51:12","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T21:51:12","slug":"florida-court-finds-no-standing-for-disappointed-consumers-in-class-action-lawsuit-concerning-halloween-themed-candies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/09\/26\/florida-court-finds-no-standing-for-disappointed-consumers-in-class-action-lawsuit-concerning-halloween-themed-candies\/","title":{"rendered":"Florida Court Finds No Standing For \u201cDisappointed\u201d Consumers In Class Action Lawsuit Concerning Halloween-Themed Candies"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Andrew P. Quay<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: \u00a0<\/strong>On September 19, 2025, in Vidal, et al. v. The Hershey Co., No. 24-CV-60831, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184308 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025), Judge Melissa Damian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed <\/a>a class action complaint alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for deceptive candy packing.\u00a0 The Court held the plaintiff-consumers failed to plausibly allege an economic injury, and therefore, lacked Article III standing. \u00a0Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were \u201cdisappointed\u201d with the lack of carved designs on Halloween-themed candy and blanket assertions that they \u201cpaid a premium\u201d was not enough to sustain an economic injury.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision illustrates that conclusory statements, without an economic injury, are not enough to confer Article III standing.  Though the ruling demonstrates \u201cspooky\u201d claims for deceptive labeling and deceptive advertising can support a potential class action, the Plaintiffs here could not show they sustained an economic injury. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs Nathan Vidal and Eduardo Granados, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of consumers, filed a class action complaint against The Hershey Company (\u201cHershey\u201d).  Plaintiffs alleged  they purchased certain decorative Reese\u2019s products in Florida and that these products \u201cmisled\u201d them in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Id. <\/em>at *4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs asserted they would not have purchased Reese\u2019s Peanut Butter Pumpkins and Reese\u2019s White Pumpkins had they known that the products did not contain detailed carvings of eyes and a mouth as pictured on the packaging.  Id.<\/em> at *3-4.  Plaintiffs maintained \u201cHershey [] deceived reasonable consumers \u2026 into believing the [p]roducts were something that they were not.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *5.  In true Halloween horror story fashion, Plaintiffs claimed that without the carvings and designs the products were \u201cworthless\u201d and that they would not have purchased them.  Id.<\/em> at *14. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hershey moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim, Hersey also moved to strike Plaintiffs\u2019 class action allegations.  Id.<\/em> at *4. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hershey primarily argued Plaintiffs lacked standing because \u201cthey suffered no injury-in-fact.\u201d   Id.<\/em> at *6.  Hershey maintained Plaintiffs lacked standing because they only alleged an economic injury.  Hershey however contended Plaintiffs did not suffer an economic injury because they still received \u201cdelicious Reese\u2019s candy.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>Even still, Hershey countered that most of the at-issue products, contained \u201cDECORATING SUGGESTION\u201d disclaimers and both carved and uncarved images.  Id.<\/em> at * 7.  Hershey similarly highlighted that Plaintiffs did not allege the products were defective, inedible, did not meet taste\/flavor expectations, or that they lost any economic value without the decorative carvings.  Id.<\/em> at *14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Hershey\u2019s motion was pending, Plaintiffs moved for class certification arguing they satisfied all the requirements under Rule 23 to certify a class of consumers who purchased any of the at-issue Reese\u2019s products \u201cbased on a false and deceptive representation of an artistic carving\u201d on the products packaging.  Id.<\/em> at *5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint because they did not allege a concrete economic injury and therefore lacked standing to pursue their personal claims and class claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In dismissing Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, the Court reasoned the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s analysis of standing emphasizes that \u201c[e]conomic injuries are the \u2018epitome\u2019 of concrete injuries,\u201d and that such an economic injury can be the \u201cresult of a deceptive or unfair practice\u201d where an individual is \u201cdeprived of the benefit of her bargain.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *15.  In analyzing the benefit of the bargain a plaintiff\u2019s damages are calculated based on \u201cthe difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract of the parties.\u201d  Debernardis v. IQ Formulations, LLC<\/em>, 942 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co.<\/em>, 823 F.3d 977, 986-87 (11th Cir. 2016)). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court relied on two analogous cases in considering Plaintiffs\u2019 economic injury assertions.  The first case concerned \u201choney-lemon cough drops\u201d that \u201csoothe[] sore throats\u201d and based on those representations the \u201cplaintiff believed that the cough drops contained lemon ingredients and were capable of soothing bronchial passages.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *17-18 (citing Valiente v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.<\/em>, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91089 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2023)).  The Court in Valiente <\/em>held plaintiff failed to allege an economic injury because the plaintiff did not allege the cough drops were defective, did not work as advertised, or were otherwise so flawed to render them worthless.  Id.  <\/em>at *18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second case concerned plaintiffs who alleged they \u201cpaid a premium price\u201d for \u201cprotein-infused brownies\u201d that contained less than the advertised protein content.  Id.<\/em> at *18 (citing Melancon v. Alpha Prime Supps, LLC<\/em>, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21114 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2025).  The Court in Melancon<\/em> held plaintiffs failed to allege they suffered an economic injury for the same reasons as Valiente<\/em> and also failed to identify any competing products for the Court to plausibly conclude that plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury in fact.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on these cases, the Court agreed that \u201cPlaintiffs here fail to allege Reese\u2019s Products they purchased were defective or worthless.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 The Court explained \u201c[p]ut simply, Plaintiffs do not allege that the products were unfit for consumption, did not taste as Plaintiffs expected, or otherwise were so flawed as to render them worthless.\u201d Id.<\/em> a<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court reasoned Plaintiffs\u2019 disappointment and conclusory allegations as to why they were deprived of the benefit of their bargain merely reflected their subjective, personal expectations of how the candies would or should have looked when unpackaged.\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 The Court held Plaintiffs\u2019 failure to tie the value of the candies to their purported misrepresentation theory did not plausibly allege a concrete economic injury for purposes of Article III standing.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *19.\u00a0 Further, the Court reasoned Plaintiffs made no allegations that would allow any measurement of \u201cthe difference between the value of the Reese\u2019s Products with or without the decorative carvings.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also determined Plaintiffs\u2019 \u201c[c]omplaint contain[ed] nothing more than allegations of Plaintiff\u2019s subjective belief that they paid a price premium\u201d and these blanket allegations were not enough to allege a concrete injury.  Id. <\/em>at *19-20. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint finding \u201cPlaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert a claim for relief\u201d individually or on behalf of a purported class.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *20.\u00a0 The Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint without prejudice preserving Plaintiffs\u2019 ability to move for leave to amend within 15 days from the date of the Court\u2019s Order.\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *23.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies faced with consumer fraud class action lawsuits alleging theories of false advertising and deceptive practices related to their products must consider standing at the outset of any litigation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vidal<\/em> illustrates the importance of analyzing Article III standing issues in every lawsuit.  The Vidal<\/em> Plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient economic injury based on their personal expectations of how Halloween-themed candies should have looked and did not allege the candies were defective, flawed, or reduced the actual value of the product.  Accordingly, the Court subjected their claims to dismissal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies should not treat defective or false advertising product class action claims lightly, and if faced with such a lawsuit, Companies must consider all available defenses. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., George J. Schaller, and Andrew P. Quay Duane Morris Takeaways: \u00a0On September 19, 2025, in Vidal, et al. v. The Hershey Co., No. 24-CV-60831, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184308 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025), Judge Melissa Damian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Florida Court Finds No Standing For \u201cDisappointed\u201d Consumers In Class Action Lawsuit Concerning Halloween-Themed Candies”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,96,147],"class_list":["post-2441","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":147,"user_id":742,"is_guest":0,"slug":"aquay","display_name":"Andrew P. Quay","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/03\/quayandrew-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2441","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2441"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2441\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2441"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}