Israeli Court Approves Multi-Million 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 certain ice cream flavors as "sugar-free" despite containing significant amounts of sugar. Laboratory tests attached to the claim showed that the hazelnut and coffee flavors labeled "sugar-free" contained approximately 6.6 grams of lactose sugar per 100 grams, exceeding the legal limit for such 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 Golda's defense that consumers would understand "sugar-free" to mean "no added sugar" in dairy ice cream, ruling that this interpretation is misleading and that the company failed to provide a reasonable explanation for using the absolute "sugar-free" label instead of alternatives like "no added sugar." The court also found that average consumers, unfamiliar with dairy product composition, were likely misled. The lawsuit was approved on grounds of consumer deception under the Consumer Protection Law, statutory violations including Israeli Standard 327, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The court authorized claims including an injunction preventing Golda from marketing the 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, both in stores and online. Following the lawsuit filing, Golda temporarily removed the affected ice creams from its product line as a precaution.

Additionally, the court ordered Golda to pay 40,000 shekels plus VAT in legal fees for this stage of the proceedings. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs emphasized that businesses bear full responsibility for truthful product labeling and that consumers should not have to interpret or correct misleading claims. They highlighted the ruling's broader significance for food industry transparency and consumer rights, especially for those avoiding sugar for health reasons such as diabetics. The legal team intends to continue pursuing full restitution for the class members.