Published
October 4, 2026
Updated
October 12, 2026
People who bought Kettle Brand “Avocado Oil” potato chips may be covered by four proposed class actions, filed in Illinois and California in August and September 2026, alleging The Campbell’s Company or its subsidiary Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. labels the chips as made with avocado oil while they contain cheaper vegetable or 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. The Campbell’s Company and Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. 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?
The Campbell’s Company, which owns Kettle Brand, was sued on September 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over the Kettle Brand potato chips it sells under an “Avocado Oil” label. The case is Wallner v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 1:26-cv-11418.The complaint says the chips’ front labels feature avocado oil and an avocado image, and the ingredient list names avocado oil as the only oil. It alleges the chips actually contain other, cheaper oils, relying on a 2026 University of California, Davis study and on lab tests the plaintiff commissioned. It is one of four suits over the same chips. Two others were filed in California federal courts, and a fourth, filed in San Francisco state court against Campbell’s subsidiary Snyder’s-Lance, Inc., was moved to federal court in September (see below). All are part of a run of suits over “avocado oil” foods that followed the UC Davis study. Campbell’s has not been found liable, and no court has ruled on the merits in any of the four cases.
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
four suits · N.D. Illinois (Sept. 17, 2026) · E.D. California (Aug. 18) · S.D. California (Sept. 15) · N.D. California (filed in state court Aug. 13; removed Sept. 16)
Products
Kettle Brand “Avocado Oil” Potato Chips
Himalayan Salt · Spicy Kimchi · Special Sauce · Sea Salt · Sea Salt With a Hint of Pink Peppercorn · Apple Cider Vinegar, among others
Proposed Classes
Nationwide, California and 14-State Classes
the Eastern and Southern District of California suits seek nationwide classes · the Illinois suit covers 14 states and D.C. · the San Francisco suit covers California buyers only
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
What the UC Davis Study Reported
The complaint leans on a peer-reviewed study by researchers at UC Davis’s Department of Food Science and Technology, “Authenticity of avocado and olive oils used as ingredients in commercially processed foods,” published in Applied Food Research in 2026. According to the complaint’s account of it, the researchers bought 27 products that listed avocado oil as their only oil (14 chips, 7 mayonnaises and 6 salad dressings), tested two lots of each, and compared the extracted oil’s fatty acids and sterols with international standards for avocado oil.The complaint says 48 of the 54 samples, and 26 of the 28 chip samples, did not match authentic avocado oil, while 19 of 20 olive-oil samples did match olive oil. It says both Kettle Brand Classic Sea Salt samples in the study fell in the “not consistent” group. The study’s own product list, attached to a later complaint, identifies the Kettle Brand chips it tested as Sea Salt With a Hint of Pink Peppercorn (Samples 17 and 18) and Apple Cider Vinegar (Samples 19 and 20). It also says the researchers fried chips in real avocado oil in the lab to check whether cooking could explain the gap, and found it could not.
The Plaintiff’s Own Lab Test
The complaint adds testing of its own. It says the plaintiff sent two unopened bags of Kettle Brand Sea Salt Avocado Oil chips to Isotek Laboratories, an Oklahoma lab certified by the American Oil Chemists’ Society, which tested them on September 9, 2026.According to the complaint, both bags came back with about 1.2% palmitoleic acid, well under the 4.0–17.1% range the international Codex standard gives for avocado oil, and about 2.7% stearic acid, about double the Codex ceiling of 1.3%. It says those levels fell outside the range for all six avocado varieties the lab compared them against. The complaint reads the results this way: if the chips contain avocado oil at all, it is not the only oil. These are the plaintiff’s test results; Campbell’s has not responded to them in court.
What the Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The first claim is under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, for Illinois buyers. The second applies what the complaint calls materially identical consumer protection laws to buyers in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington State and Washington, D.C.The core theory is a price premium: buyers paid extra for chips they believed were made only with avocado oil and would not have bought them, or paid as much, otherwise. The plaintiff says she paid about 60 cents an ounce for a bag bought from Walmart’s online store in spring 2026. The complaint asks for compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages where the law allows, restitution, interest, attorneys’ fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. It does not put a dollar figure on the class’s losses.
Who Would Be Covered?
The proposed class is everyone in the 14 listed states and Washington, D.C. who bought Kettle Brand Avocado Oil chips within each state’s statute of limitations. People who bought for resale, Campbell’s and its affiliates, and the judge’s family are excluded. Buyers elsewhere are not in the class as filed, though the complaint reserves the right to change the definition.A proposed class is only a request. A judge has to certify it, or Campbell’s has to settle, before anyone in it could receive money.
Three More Kettle Brand Suits in California
The Illinois case is not the only one. Three earlier proposed class actions over the same chips are pending in California federal courts, and all three rely on the same UC Davis study:• Heiland v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 1:26-cv-06598 (E.D. Cal.), filed August 18, 2026 by Bursor & Fisher and assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. It targets Kettle Brand Avocado Oil Sea Salt With a Hint of Pink Peppercorn chips, which it says the study tested in two production lots, and proposes a nationwide class with a California subclass. Its claims are under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
• Gianne v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 3:26-cv-05306 (S.D. Cal.), filed September 15, 2026 by KalielGold PLLC and assigned to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. It covers Apple Cider Vinegar and Sea Salt With a Hint of Peppercorn chips labeled “Made With Avocado Oil,” alleges the oil in them is so different from authentic avocado oil that the chips cannot be said to contain any, and also proposes a nationwide class with a California subclass under the same three California statutes, express warranty and unjust enrichment.
• Bautista v. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10580 (N.D. Cal.), the earliest of the four. Crosner Legal filed it on August 13, 2026 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County (No. CGC-26-639884), and it was removed to federal court on September 16; the complaint is an exhibit to the removal. It names Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. rather than Campbell’s itself. The complaint describes Snyder’s-Lance as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The Campbell’s Company and says it is the registered representative of the “Kettle Brand” business name on the bag’s “Distributed by Kettle Brand” line. It covers only Kettle Brand Sea Salt with a Hint of Pink Peppercorn chips sold as “Made With Avocado Oil,” the same flavor at issue in Heiland and Gianne, and attaches the UC Davis study, which it says tested two lots of that flavor as Samples 17 and 18. According to the complaint, both lots fell below the avocado oil range for palmitoleic acid (1.0% and 1.3%, against 4.0–17.1%) and above it for stearic acid (3.0% and 2.5%, against a 1.3% ceiling), and delta-7-stigmastenol reached about 4.1 and 5.5 times the Codex ceiling. It proposes a class of people who bought the chips in California for personal or household use, with no nationwide class, and pleads the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (for now seeking only an injunction under that law), the Unfair Competition Law and breach of express warranty. It asks for restitution, damages, and an injunction that would include a corrective advertising campaign. According to the docket, Snyder’s-Lance filed a stipulation on September 17 extending its time to respond, and on September 24 the case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson to Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín.
All four suits are at the complaint stage, and none has been certified.
One of Several Avocado Oil Lawsuits
Kettle Brand joins a growing list of brands sued over avocado oil claims since the UC Davis study appeared, including Utz’s Boulder Canyon and Good Health chips, Sprouts’ store-brand chips, PepsiCo’s Simply Tostitos and Siete chips, and Chosen Foods mayonnaise and spray oil. OCA tracks every one, with court, case number and status, on its avocado oil class action lawsuit tracker.What Happens Next
Campbell’s will respond to the complaint, most often with a motion to dismiss in food-labeling cases like this one. With four suits over the same chips in four federal courts, they may be transferred or consolidated so that one judge handles them. Bautista, the earliest, is now before Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín in the Northern District of California, and Snyder’s-Lance’s time to respond there was extended by stipulation. The case could also be dropped or settled. There is no deadline for consumers and nothing to sign up for. OCA will update this page if the case is certified, dismissed or settled.Questions
Which Kettle Brand chips are named in the lawsuit?
The complaint covers Kettle Brand potato chips sold under an “Avocado Oil” label. The Illinois complaint lists Avocado Oil Himalayan Salt, Spicy Kimchi, Special Sauce, Sea Salt and Apple Cider Vinegar chips and says the list is not exhaustive; the three California complaints focus on Sea Salt With a Hint of Pink Peppercorn and Apple Cider Vinegar chips labeled “Made With Avocado Oil.” Standard Kettle Brand chips that are not sold as avocado oil chips are not part of the cases.
Does the lawsuit say there is no avocado oil in Kettle Brand chips?
No. The complaint’s core claim is that avocado oil is not the only oil in the chips, even though the ingredient list names avocado oil as the sole oil. It says the chips’ fatty acid pattern points to dilution with cheaper vegetable or seed oils. Campbell’s has not been found liable, and no court has ruled on the testing.
How many Kettle Brand avocado oil lawsuits are there?
OCA has confirmed four. Bautista v. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. was filed August 13, 2026 in San Francisco Superior Court against Campbell’s subsidiary Snyder’s-Lance and removed to the Northern District of California on September 16, 2026. Heiland v. The Campbell’s Company was filed August 18, 2026 in the Eastern District of California, Wallner v. The Campbell’s Company on September 17, 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois, and Gianne v. The Campbell’s Company on September 15, 2026 in the Southern District of California. Heiland and Gianne propose nationwide classes with California subclasses; Bautista proposes a California-only class; the Illinois suit proposes a class of buyers in 14 states and Washington, D.C.
Do I need a receipt for the Kettle Brand avocado oil lawsuit?
Not right now, because there is nothing to file. The case is at the complaint stage, no class has been certified and there is no settlement. If the case ever settles, the settlement notice will say what proof, if any, a claim requires.
Sources
• Class action complaint, Wallner v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 1:26-cv-11418 (N.D. Ill., filed September 17, 2026), the source of every allegation and test result above.• The case docket on CourtListener.
• Class action complaint, Heiland v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 1:26-cv-06598 (E.D. Cal., filed August 18, 2026).
• Class action complaint, Gianne v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 3:26-cv-05306 (S.D. Cal., filed September 15, 2026).
• Class action complaint, Bautista v. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc., San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-26-639884 (filed August 13, 2026), as Exhibit A to the notice of removal, No. 3:26-cv-10580 (N.D. Cal., removed September 16, 2026), and the CourtListener docket.
• Lopez-Alvarez et al., “Authenticity of avocado and olive oils used as ingredients in commercially processed foods,” Applied Food Research (2026), the UC Davis study the complaint cites.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Allegations Only
Case Title
Wallner v. The Campbell’s Company
Case Number
1:26-cv-11418
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Judge
Elaine E. Bucklo
Date Filed
September 17, 2026
Products
Kettle Brand “Avocado Oil” potato chips
Claims
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; consumer protection laws of 13 other states and D.C.
Plaintiff Counsel
Siri & Glimstad LLP
Related Cases
Heiland v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 1:26-cv-06598 (E.D. Cal.); Gianne v. The Campbell’s Company, No. 3:26-cv-05306 (S.D. Cal.); Bautista v. Snyder’s-Lance, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10580 (N.D. Cal., removed from San Francisco Superior Court; reassigned September 24, 2026 to Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín)
Court Docket
Wallner v. Campbell’s on Court Listener
