Mondelez Global employees who paid a tobacco surcharge on company health coverage may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Mondelez charged tobacco users an extra $100 a month without meeting ERISA’s wellness-program rules. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Mondelez Global LLC and its plan administrative committee have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A former Mondelez employee filed a proposed class action on October 9, 2026, claiming the company’s health plan charged workers who use tobacco an extra $100 a month for medical coverage without following the federal rules that make such a charge lawful. The case is Rusbuldt v. Mondelez Global LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12451, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Mondelez Global LLC is the Chicago-based U.S. operating company of Mondelez International, the maker of Oreo, Ritz and Cadbury.The defendants are Mondelez Global LLC, the Mondelez Global LLC Administrative Committee, and up to 20 unnamed committee members. The lawsuit is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It is at its earliest stage: no class has been certified, Mondelez has not had its day in court, and there is no settlement or claim process.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
How the Surcharge Worked, According to the Complaint
The complaint quotes two Mondelez benefits documents attached as exhibits: a 2020 New Hire Guide and a 2021 Annual Enrollment Guide. According to the complaint, the 2020 guide said employees who use tobacco products “of any kind,” including e-cigarettes, would pay an additional $100 a month for medical coverage, “no matter how frequent the use.” Employees enrolling in medical coverage had to certify whether they used tobacco, and the guide warned that an untruthful answer could bring plan penalties, loss of coverage or discipline at work.The 2020 guide pointed tobacco users to a free Tobacco Cessation Program offered through Mondelez’s Fuel4Life wellbeing program as a way to “avoid the surcharge.” The 2021 guide, the complaint says, repeated the $100 monthly charge in its medical coverage section without describing an alternative or waiver there.
The named plaintiff’s pay statement listed a separate $25 deduction labeled “*Ben Sur Tobacco” next to her medical, dental, vision and 401(k) deductions, according to the complaint. The complaint does not say how often that deduction was taken or what she paid in total; it says those figures are in Mondelez’s payroll and plan records.
The Federal Rule Behind the Case
ERISA generally bars a group health plan from charging one participant more than a similarly situated participant because of a health factor, and federal regulations treat tobacco use as one of those factors. The exception is a wellness program. A plan may charge tobacco users more, up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage, if its program meets every condition in regulations the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury adopted in 2013.Two of those conditions are at the center of this lawsuit. First, the plan has to offer a reasonable alternative standard, and someone who meets it has to receive the same, full reward as someone who met the original standard. In the regulators’ own example, a participant in a calendar-year plan who satisfies the alternative on April 1 is still owed the discount for January, February and March. Second, every plan material that describes the program has to say that an alternative or waiver is available, give contact information for obtaining it, and state that recommendations from the participant’s personal physician will be accommodated.
What the Complaint Says Was Missing
The lawsuit claims Mondelez’s materials fell short on both points. On notice, it alleges that neither guide told employees an individualized alternative or waiver was available to every tobacco user or that a personal physician’s recommendations would be accommodated, and that a general pointer to an online benefits portal or the Fuel4Life vendor does not substitute for the required statement.On the full reward, the complaint says the guides promised only that finishing the cessation program would let an employee “avoid the surcharge,” with no mention of refunding or crediting surcharges already deducted that year. It alleges, on information and belief, that participants who completed the program after deductions began received only prospective relief. The complaint itself acknowledges that the cessation program was free; its argument is that the free program does not cure the notice and full-reward problems it describes.
The Fiduciary Claims
The complaint also accuses Mondelez and the committee of breaching their fiduciary duties. It says the plan is self-funded and that Mondelez pays most of the cost of employee medical coverage, so every surcharge dollar collected from workers allegedly reduced what the company itself had to put in. Under federal rules, money withheld from wages for a benefit plan becomes a plan asset once it can reasonably be separated from the employer’s own funds. The lawsuit claims that using those amounts to lower Mondelez’s own costs was self-dealing and a prohibited transaction, and that Mondelez failed to monitor the committee that ran the program.Who Is in the Proposed Class
The proposed class is all individuals residing in the United States who, during the applicable limitations period, paid a premium or contribution difference based on tobacco-use status in connection with the Mondelez Global LLC Group Benefits Plan. The complaint says the surcharge was described in standard materials for U.S. salaried and non-union hourly employees, and it cites Mondelez International’s report of about 12,000 U.S. employees at the end of 2025. It alleges that the class includes hundreds or thousands of participants; it does not give an exact count.Mondelez’s officers and directors, the people responsible for the challenged conduct, and the judges on the case are excluded. The court has not approved the class definition, and the complaint reserves the right to change it.
What the Lawsuit Asks For
The complaint brings four counts: two for an unlawful premium difference (one over the alternative and full reward, one over notice) and two for breach of fiduciary duty, one seeking relief for the plan and one for individual participants. It asks the court to certify the class and declare that the surcharge violated ERISA. It also asks for repayment or credit of the surcharges, an accounting of what was collected and where it went, return of any profits Mondelez allegedly made from the money, corrected plan materials, and attorneys’ fees. The complaint does not put a dollar figure on the total.The plaintiff is represented by Siri & Glimstad LLP.
What Happens Next
Mondelez will have a chance to answer the complaint or move to dismiss it. The judge would rule on any motion to dismiss before the case reaches class certification. If the case later settles, the court would have to approve the deal and set a process for class members.Other Tobacco Surcharge Cases
Lawsuits over employer tobacco surcharges have been filed against a number of large employers, including the Waffle House tobacco surcharge lawsuit and the Whataburger tobacco surcharge lawsuit. One similar case against Casey’s General Stores ended in a $5.1 million settlement that pays plan members automatically; that outcome says nothing about how the Mondelez case will turn out. OCA’s employer smoker surcharge investigation explains the federal and state rules in more detail.Questions
What does the Mondelez tobacco surcharge lawsuit allege?
The complaint alleges that Mondelez Global charged employees classified as tobacco users an extra $100 a month for medical coverage under its group benefits plan without satisfying ERISA’s wellness-program exception. It claims the plan’s materials left out the required notice of a reasonable alternative and did not provide a way to recover surcharges already paid in a plan year. These are unproven allegations, and Mondelez has not been found liable.
Is there a settlement or any money to claim?
No. The case was filed on October 9, 2026, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement, claim form or payment. Any money would depend on the court ruling for the employees or the parties reaching a settlement that a judge approves.
Who would be in the class if it is certified?
The proposed class covers everyone residing in the United States who, during the applicable limitations period, paid a premium or contribution difference based on tobacco-use status through the Mondelez Global LLC Group Benefits Plan. The court has not approved that definition, and it can change before any certification ruling.
Does Mondelez’s free cessation program matter to the case?
The complaint acknowledges that Mondelez pointed tobacco users to a free Tobacco Cessation Program through its Fuel4Life wellbeing program. It argues that offering the program was not enough on its own, because the plan materials allegedly lacked the required notice language and did not promise the full year’s reward to someone who finished the program partway through the year. Whether that is correct is for the court to decide.
Is this related to the Wheat Thins settlement?
No. The Wheat Thins settlement resolved claims about “100% Whole Grain” labeling on a Mondelez snack brand, and its claim period has closed. The tobacco surcharge lawsuit is a separate employee-benefits case brought on behalf of health plan participants.
Sources
• Rusbuldt v. Mondelez Global LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12451 (N.D. Ill.) — CourtListener docket• Class Action Complaint, filed October 9, 2026 (PDF)
• 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702 — Prohibiting discrimination based on a health factor (eCFR)
• Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans, 78 Fed. Reg. 33158 (June 3, 2013)
