Court Approves Multimillion-Class Action Against Golda Ice Cream for Misleading 'Sugar-Free' Labeling

The Central District Court in Lod approved a class action lawsuit against Anita Glida Ltd., the franchise operator of the Golda ice cream chain, on August 9, 2026. The lawsuit alleges that Golda marketed ice creams labeled as "sugar-free" while they contained significant amounts of sugar. Laboratory tests attached to the petition revealed that the "sugar-free" hazelnut and coffee flavored ice creams contained approximately 6.6 grams of lactose sugar per 100 grams, exceeding the legal threshold for sugar-free labeling by over 13 times. Israeli regulations permit the "sugar-free" label only if the product contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams.

The court rejected the chain's argument that consumers would understand "sugar-free" to mean "no added sugar" in dairy ice cream, ruling that the label was misleading and that the company failed to provide a reasonable explanation for using the absolute term instead of alternatives like "no added sugar." The court also found it plausible that average consumers, unfamiliar with dairy product compositions, were actually misled. The class action was approved on grounds including consumer deception under the Consumer Protection Law, statutory violations, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The court authorized claims for an injunction preventing the chain from marketing these products as "sugar-free," full refunds to class members, and compensation for non-material damages estimated at 300 shekels per class member for harm to consumer autonomy. The class includes customers who purchased the labeled products in the past seven years, whether in stores or online. Following the petition, Golda temporarily removed the disputed ice creams from its product line as a precaution.

The court also ordered Golda to pay 40,000 shekels plus VAT in legal fees for this stage of the proceedings. Attorneys Or Yarkoni, Uri Elder, and Omri Segev, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the importance of truthful labeling, especially for consumers avoiding sugar for health reasons. They stated the ruling sends a clear message to the food industry that claims like "sugar-free" must be accurate and reliable, and pledged to continue pursuing full restitution for the affected consumers.