Israeli Court Approves Class Action Against Golda Ice Cream for Misleading 'Sugar-Free' Labeling
An Israeli court approved a class action against Golda ice cream chain for falsely labeling products as "sugar-free" despite containing lactose and sugar substitutes, following lab tests and consumer complaints. The court ruled the labeling could mislead consumers and allowed the case to proceed.
הידיעה ב-6 שורות · תקציר של baba
- Israeli court approves class action against Golda for misleading 'sugar-free' ice cream labeling.
- Lab tests found 6.6g lactose per 100g, exceeding the 0.5g legal limit for 'sugar-free' products.
- Ice creams also contained sugar alcohol substitutes without clear consumer disclosure.
- Plaintiff Sol Yarkoni filed suit after buying mislabeled ice cream in Ramat Gan.
- Golda argued 'sugar-free' means no added sugar, but court rejected this defense.
- Judge authorized claims of deception, negligence, statutory breach, and unjust enrichment.
The Central District Court in Lod approved a class action lawsuit against Anita Ice Cream, operator of the Golda ice cream chain, for marketing and selling ice cream labeled as "sugar-free" that actually contained lactose sugar and sugar alcohol substitutes without proper consumer disclosure. The lawsuit was filed by Sol Yarkoni, who purchased a "sugar-free" ice cream at the Golda branch in Ramat Gan. Yarkoni, who avoids sugar for health reasons, suspected the product contained sugar and had it tested by a certified laboratory. The lab results revealed about 6.6 grams of lactose sugar per 100 grams in tested flavors such as hazelnut and coffee, far exceeding the regulatory maximum of 0.5 grams per 100 grams for "sugar-free" products. Additionally, the ice creams contained sugar alcohol substitutes that were not clearly disclosed at purchase.
Golda rejected the claims, arguing that consumers understand that milk-based ice cream naturally contains lactose, and that "sugar-free" refers only to the absence of added sugar. The company also noted it temporarily removed the products from shelves to avoid confusion. However, Judge Iris Rabinovitz Baron rejected the company's defense, ruling that the interpretation that the "sugar-free" label could mislead consumers is reasonable and warrants a thorough investigation in a class action. The court authorized examination of claims including consumer deception, negligence, statutory violations, unjust enrichment, and allowed demands for financial remedies and permanent injunctions.
אותו אירוע, כפי שכל מערכת דיווחה עליו בנפרד. פתחו כמה דיווחים כדי להשוות מה כל מערכת מדגישה, ומה היא משאירה בחוץ.
מרכז 3ימין 1אחרים 2
