Published
October 12, 2026
California residents who bought Jackson’s Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips or Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Jackson’s Food Company, LLC labels the chips “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL” while making them with cheaper seed oils. 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. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC has 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?
Jackson’s Food Company, LLC, the Wisconsin company behind the Jackson’s brand of chips and snacks, is facing a proposed class action over two chips sold with the phrase “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL.” The case, Ayala v. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-11302, was filed September 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that the phrase tells shoppers the chips are made entirely with avocado oil, and that they are instead made in substantial part with cheaper seed oils. Its main evidence is a 2026 University of California, Davis study that, according to the complaint, tested both chips and found the oil in them inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. None of this has been proven, and the complaint presents only the plaintiff’s side.
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.
Status
Complaint Filed
filed September 29, 2026 · C.D. Cal. · allegations only · no settlement
What’s Alleged
“Always With Avocado Oil” Chips Made With Seed Oils
the complaint cites a 2026 UC Davis study that classified all four Jackson’s samples as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil
Products
Two Jackson’s Chips
Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips · Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Only with Avocado Oil · proposed class limited to California residents
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
What the Label Says, and What the Complaint Alleges
The complaint names two products: Jackson’s Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips, and Jackson’s Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Only with Avocado Oil. It says both bags carry the phrase “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL,” which it treats as a representation that avocado oil is the only oil used. Other Jackson’s products are not part of the case.According to the complaint, the chips are “adulterated with cheaper seed oils.” It argues that the avocado oil claim matters to buyers because avocado oil is widely seen as a healthier, premium cooking oil, while many consumers try to avoid seed oils, and it says shoppers paid more for the chips than they would have had they known what oil was in them. The named plaintiff, a Pomona, California resident, says he bought the sweet potato chips at a Sprouts store in Pomona around May 2026 and would not have bought them, or would have paid less, had he known.
The UC Davis Testing Cited in the Complaint
The complaint relies on a peer-reviewed study by researchers in UC Davis’s Department of Food Science and Technology and University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, published in Applied Food Research in 2026. As the complaint describes it, the study looked only at processed foods that listed a single oil in their ingredients and analyzed 74 samples in all. That included 28 avocado oil chip samples, two production lots of each of 14 chip products, bought in 2025 and 2026 from California stores and online.Both Jackson’s chips were among them, the complaint says, as samples 21 and 22 (sweet potato) and 23 and 24 (kettle cooked sea salt). The researchers extracted the oil from each sample and compared its fatty acid and sterol profile with the ranges for avocado oil in the Codex Alimentarius standard for named vegetable oils, disregarding small single-marker deviations. According to the complaint, all four Jackson’s samples were classified as compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil.
The complaint says the failing chips shared a pattern, including lower levels of cis-vaccenic and palmitic acid and higher levels of stearic acid and certain plant sterols, that it calls a signature of seed oils such as canola, corn, soybean or sunflower. It also says the researchers fried their own potato and tortilla chips in pure avocado oil and found that frying shifted the key markers only slightly, which the complaint uses to rule out cooking as the explanation. These are the plaintiff’s descriptions of the study; no court has evaluated the testing.
What Could Be Disputed
The complaint does not include any response from Jackson’s, and several of its points are the kind that defendants in food-labeling cases commonly contest. The first is what the label means. The complaint reads “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL” as a promise that avocado oil is the only oil in the bag; the phrase can also be read as saying avocado oil is an ingredient without excluding others. How a reasonable shopper understands a label is a question courts in false advertising cases often have to decide, and the second product’s name, as the complaint gives it, adds the words “Only with Avocado Oil.”The second is how far the testing reaches. The study, as described, tested two production lots of each product, and the complaint asks the court to treat those results as representative of the chips sold during the whole class period. The third is the price premium: the complaint says buyers paid more because of the avocado oil claim but does not put a figure on how much.
The Claims and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint pleads seven counts, all under California law: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, the Unfair Competition Law, breach of express and implied warranty, quasi-contract and unjust enrichment, and common law fraud.Under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, a consumer must give the company notice and 30 days to respond before seeking damages under that law. The complaint says a notice letter was mailed on or around September 29, 2026, and that the plaintiff will amend the complaint to seek damages under the Act if Jackson’s does not address the claims within 30 days of receiving it.
The complaint asks the court to certify the proposed classes, declare the labeling unlawful and order Jackson’s to stop the conduct it describes. It also seeks restitution and disgorgement of profits; actual, compensatory, nominal, statutory and punitive damages; interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs. These are requests, not awards. Nothing has been ordered and no money is available.
Who Would Be Covered
The proposed class is limited to California. It covers all California residents who bought either product within the applicable statute of limitations period, with a subclass of California residents who bought for personal, family or household use. The complaint does not propose a nationwide class. Jackson’s and its affiliates, officers and employees, people who opt out, and the judges assigned to the case are excluded. The complaint estimates the class at likely tens of thousands of people.No class has been certified, which means no court has decided whether the case can go forward on behalf of anyone other than the named plaintiff. The complaint reserves the right to change the class definitions before that decision.
What Happens Next
The case is at its earliest stage. In food-labeling cases, the defendant’s first response is commonly a motion to dismiss rather than an answer. If the case survives that stage, the parties would exchange evidence before any class-certification decision. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed or settled before any payout, and there is no guarantee this one results in a recovery.The suit is one of a series of avocado oil class actions filed since August 2026 that cite the same UC Davis study, including cases over Siete chips, Kettle Brand chips, Sprouts store-brand chips and Boulder Canyon and Good Health chips. OCA’s avocado oil lawsuit tracker lists every case, with courts, case numbers and filing dates.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund, so nothing is required of consumers at this stage. If the case is certified as a class action or settles, a court-approved notice would explain who is covered and what, if anything, class members would need to do.Questions
Is there a Jackson’s chips settlement or claim form?
There is no settlement and no claim form. The case is a proposed class action filed September 29, 2026, and it is at the complaint stage. There is no fund, no administrator and no deadline, and there is no guarantee the case ever produces a payment.
Which Jackson’s chips are named in the lawsuit?
Two products: Jackson’s Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips and Jackson’s Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Only with Avocado Oil. The complaint says both are labeled “ALWAYS WITH AVOCADO OIL.” Other Jackson’s products are not named.
What testing does the Jackson’s complaint rely on?
According to the complaint, a 2026 peer-reviewed study by University of California, Davis food scientists, published in Applied Food Research, tested two production lots of each Jackson’s chip and classified all four samples as compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. These are the plaintiff’s descriptions of the study, and no court has evaluated the testing.
Does the lawsuit say the chips contain no avocado oil at all?
The complaint does not go that far. It alleges the chips are not made entirely with avocado oil and that the oil in them consists in substantial part of cheaper seed oils, based on fatty acid and sterol patterns it says are typical of seed oils rather than avocado oil.
Who would be covered if a class is certified?
The complaint proposes a class of California residents who bought either product within the applicable statute of limitations period, and a subclass of those who bought for personal, family or household use. It does not propose a nationwide class. No class has been certified, so no one is covered yet.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Ayala v. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-11302 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 29, 2026) — complaint PDF• Public docket, Ayala v. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-11302 (C.D. Cal.) — docket on CourtListener
• Lopez-Alvarez et al., “Authenticity of Avocado and Olive Oils Used as Ingredients in Commercially Processed Foods,” Applied Food Research (2026), as cited and described in the complaint
• Codex Alimentarius, Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999), as cited in the complaint
• Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500; Cal. Com. Code §§ 2313 and 2314
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Ayala v. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-11302 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel or Jackson’s Food Company, LLC. The allegations have not been proven in court. This article is general information about the case. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
Ayala v. Jackson’s Food Company, LLC
Case Number
2:26-cv-11302
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
September 29, 2026
Defendant
Jackson’s Food Company, LLC
Products
Jackson’s Avocado Oil Sweet Potato Chips · Jackson’s Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Only with Avocado Oil
Claims
Cal. CLRA · FAL · UCL · express warranty · implied warranty · quasi-contract / unjust enrichment · common law fraud
Class Status
Not certified — proposed California class and consumer subclass
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
