Published
August 5, 2026
A proposed class action filed in federal court in New York accuses Unilever of promising “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” on 25 varieties of Knorr Rice, Pasta and Noodles Sides whose ingredient panels list citric acid and three related additives. It is a complaint, not a settlement — there is no fund, no claim form and nothing to file.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Unilever has not been found liable, has not yet responded to the complaint, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. No product has been recalled, and no court or regulator has found any Knorr product unsafe or mislabeled. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action accuses Unilever of putting a “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” promise on Knorr Rice Sides, Pasta Sides and Noodles Sides whose own ingredient panels list citric acid, sodium citrate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate. The complaint, Lisa v. Unilever United States, Inc. (Case No. 7:26-cv-06536, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, assigned to Judge Nelson S. Román in White Plains), was filed on July 30, 2026 by a single named plaintiff from Westchester County, represented by Bursor & Fisher.The theory is a price-premium theory, not a safety theory. Nobody claims the products made anyone sick. The complaint says the four additives are synthetic — manufactured through chemical or fermentation processes rather than taken from a plant — and that they function as flavorings, flavor enhancers or preservatives. On that reading, the front-of-box claim is false, shoppers who pay extra for “free-from” food got something they did not bargain for, and the named plaintiff says the products would not have been purchased, or would have been worth less, had the label been accurate. Unilever has not yet responded, and the allegations are unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · July 30, 2026
Lisa v. Unilever United States, Inc. · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (White Plains)
Products Named
25 Knorr Rice Sides, Pasta Sides and Noodles Sides varieties
Written to reach any Knorr product advertised as having no artificial flavors or preservatives that contains one of the four ingredients at issue
Core Allegation
“No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” alongside citric acid and three related additives
New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment
Proposed Classes
Nationwide purchasers, plus a New York subclass
Pleaded under CAFA with more than $5 million at stake · no class certified
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form, no deadline
The Four Ingredients at the Center of the Case
Every allegation in the complaint runs through four ingredients. What each one does, and why the complaint says it breaks the label, is worth separating out — because the argument is much stronger for one of them than for the others.Citric acid carries the case. The complaint's position is that citric acid is both artificial and a preservative. On the artificial half, it alleges that although citric acid occurs naturally in citrus, extraction from fruit is no longer commercially viable, and that more than 99 percent of the citric acid produced today comes from fermentation using the mold Aspergillus niger followed by further chemical processing. It cites a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service technical review describing the lime-and-sulfuric-acid recovery process and quoting a reviewer who concluded the processing “would suggest that it be classified as synthetic.” On the preservative half, it points to the FDA's own regulatory definition at 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(a)(5) — any chemical that “tends to prevent or retard deterioration” — and to citric acid's listing as a preservative in the FDA's consumer overview of food ingredients and additives.
Sodium citrate is the sodium salt of citric acid, used to control acidity and, in the cheese-sauce varieties, to keep the sauce emulsified. The complaint's cleanest cite here is regulatory: sodium citrate appears on the National List at 7 C.F.R. § 205.605 as a substance classified as synthetic yet allowed in organic processing. A federal regulation calling an ingredient synthetic is a useful fact for a plaintiff arguing the label is wrong.
Disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are the pair that appears in nearly every product on the list. They are nucleotide flavor enhancers, almost always used together and alongside MSG, and they produce umami — the savory note in a chicken or beef side dish. The complaint alleges both are manufactured, describing the fermentation-and-phosphoryl-chloride routes used to make them. Note what it does not allege: it does not say either one is a preservative. They are flavor-side ingredients only, which means the “or Preservatives” half of the label claim rests entirely on citric acid and sodium citrate.
Which Knorr Products Are Named
The complaint lists 25 varieties and the specific additives it says each one contains. The proposed class is written more broadly than the list — it reaches any Knorr product carrying the no-artificial claim that contains one of the four ingredients — so the table below is illustrative rather than exhaustive.| Knorr Product | Ingredients Identified in the Complaint |
|---|---|
| Cilantro Lime Rice | Citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Spanish Rice Side | Citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Taco Rice Side | Citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Teriyaki Noodles Side | Citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Buffalo Chicken Flavor Pasta Side | Citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Cheesy Cheddar Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, citric acid, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Alfredo Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Alfredo Broccoli Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Parmesan Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Cheddar Broccoli Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Creamy Chicken Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Creamy Pesto Pasta Side | Sodium citrate, disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Marinara Pasta Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Chicken Pasta Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Butter Pasta Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Butter & Herb Pasta Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Creamy Garlic Pasta Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Cajun Chicken Flavored Rice | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Chicken Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Creamy Chicken Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Chicken Fried Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Herb & Butter Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Mushroom Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Rice Medley Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
| Teriyaki Rice Side | Disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate |
Why Citric Acid Keeps Ending Up in Court
This is not a one-off filing. Citric acid has become one of the most-litigated ingredients in American food labeling, and this complaint reads like others in that wave — the same USDA technical report, the same FDA warning letters to Hirzel Canning and Oak Tree Farm Dairy, the same 2018 Toxicology Reports case series on inflammatory reactions to manufactured citric acid. We have covered several of these cases, including a nearly identical “no preservatives” suit over Costco's Kirkland Five Cheese Tortelloni, a Gatorade complaint over “no artificial flavors”, a Frito-Lay Poppables case, and an AriZona Beverages suit over “100% Natural” tea.The reason to pay attention to that history is that judges have split on it — and, unusually, they have split inside the very district where this case was filed.
In Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 7:23-cv-01399 (S.D.N.Y.), the court granted a motion to dismiss on March 18, 2024. Its reasoning was that generalized assertions about how citric acid is industrially produced were not enough to plausibly allege that the citric acid in the specific product was synthetic — the plaintiff had not, for instance, tested it — and that a reasonable consumer would not treat a compound found in nature as artificial merely because it was made a different way.
A year later the same district went the other way. In Ward v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00078 (S.D.N.Y.), the court denied a motion to dismiss on March 26, 2025 in a case over the identical “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” claim, on Goldfish crackers containing citric acid. Courts allowing these cases forward have generally reasoned that whether an ingredient is artificial, and whether it functions as a preservative in a particular food, are fact questions that cannot be resolved on the pleadings.
So the outcome here is genuinely open. The complaint is drafted with the dismissals in mind — it front-loads the regulatory and scientific citations that Valencia found missing, and it pleads the preservative theory under the FDA's own “tends to prevent or retard deterioration” definition, so that it does not have to prove citric acid is actually acting as a preservative inside a box of pasta side.
What the Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The complaint pleads four counts:• New York General Business Law § 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices, for the New York subclass. It seeks actual damages or $50 per person, whichever is greater.
• New York General Business Law § 350, the false advertising provision, also for the New York subclass. It seeks actual damages or $500 per person, whichever is greater, plus treble damages.
• Breach of express warranty, for the nationwide class and the New York subclass, on the theory that the front-of-package claim was part of the description of the goods.
• Unjust enrichment, pleaded in the alternative.
It also asks the court to certify the classes, to enjoin the labeling and order a corrective advertising campaign, and to award restitution, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. A jury trial is demanded. All of that is relief requested on unproven allegations; nothing has been awarded.
One procedural detail is worth flagging because it may come up early. The express warranty count states that a pre-suit notice letter was sent to Unilever by certified mail on February 25, 2026, as the Uniform Commercial Code requires. The complaint separately states that the named plaintiff bought the product “in or around May 2026” — after that letter. Whether that sequence satisfies the notice requirement is the kind of question a defendant typically raises at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and it affects only the warranty count.
Who Would Be Covered by the Proposed Classes?
As pleaded, the nationwide class is everyone in the United States who bought the products during the applicable statute of limitations period. A New York subclass covers those class members who reside in New York. The complaint estimates class membership in the hundreds of thousands and says members could be identified through Unilever's own distribution records and those of third-party retailers.No class has been certified. Class definitions routinely change during litigation, courts frequently narrow nationwide classes in food-labeling cases to the state whose law is pleaded, and the case may not survive to certification at all.
What Unilever Is Likely to Argue
Unilever has not filed a response, so this is not its position — but the defenses in this category of case are well established, and readers deciding how much weight to give the complaint should know what is coming.Expect a motion to dismiss built on some combination of: that citric acid is a naturally occurring compound and a reasonable consumer would not consider it artificial regardless of how it is manufactured, the argument that carried Valencia; that the complaint never alleges the citric acid in these specific products is synthetic as opposed to citric acid generally; that citric acid and sodium citrate are used here for tartness and emulsification rather than to preserve anything, so the “preservatives” half of the claim fails on function; that disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are flavor enhancers rather than flavors, a distinction with support in FDA's own ingredient taxonomy; and federal preemption, on the theory that a state-law claim cannot impose labeling requirements different from the federal scheme.
The complaint's answer to the preemption argument, implicit in how it is drafted, is that it challenges Unilever's own voluntary front-of-package statement rather than seeking to enforce or rewrite any federal requirement — the same framing that has worked in other food cases.
Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?
No. This is a lawsuit at the complaint stage, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout and no deadline to act.
• You do not need to register, sign up, or contact anyone.
For money to reach any purchaser, the case would have to survive Unilever's expected motion to dismiss, win class certification, and then settle or prevail at trial. That takes years and frequently does not happen — and in this category of case, roughly comparable complaints have been thrown out at the first step. If you have receipts or store loyalty records for these products, keeping them is reasonable, but nothing is required. Be cautious of any site claiming you can file a Knorr claim today.
What Happens Next
Unilever's response is the next milestone, and a motion to dismiss is the likely form it takes. If the case survives, it moves into discovery — where the questions become what Unilever knew about how its citric acid is produced, why the additives are in the formulations, and what function they actually perform — and then to a class certification motion.The related cases are worth watching alongside it. Ward v. Pepperidge Farm is the closest analogue and is further along; how it develops will shape how courts in this district treat the theory. Meanwhile Unilever is a repeat defendant in consumer labeling litigation across its portfolio, from the Suave aerosol antiperspirant case to a Dove hypoallergenic body wash complaint.
OpenClassActions.com will watch the docket and update this page on a ruling, a certification decision, or a settlement with a claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Knorr settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed class action complaint, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, no claim form, no payout and no deadline to act. Unilever has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time.
What does the lawsuit allege?
That Knorr Rice Sides, Pasta Sides and Noodles Sides are labeled “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives” even though their ingredient lists include citric acid, sodium citrate, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate, which the complaint describes as artificial flavors, flavor enhancers or preservatives. It brings claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. These are unproven allegations and Unilever has not yet responded.
Which Knorr products are named?
The complaint lists 25 varieties, including Cilantro Lime Rice, Spanish Rice Side, Chicken Rice Side, Cheddar Broccoli Pasta Side, Alfredo Pasta Side, Butter & Herb Rice Side and Teriyaki Noodles Side. The proposed class is not limited to that list — it is written to cover any Knorr product advertised as having no artificial flavors or preservatives that contains one of the four ingredients at issue.
Is citric acid artificial?
That is the contested question, and courts have not answered it the same way. Citric acid occurs naturally in citrus fruit, but the complaint alleges more than 99 percent of the citric acid used commercially is produced by fermentation using the mold Aspergillus niger and further chemical processing, which it says makes it artificial. Some courts have let that theory proceed past a motion to dismiss; at least one court in this same district rejected it in 2024. No court has ruled on it in this case.
Are these products unsafe?
Nothing in the complaint says so. This is an economic case about labeling and price, not a safety or personal injury case. No plaintiff claims the products caused illness, no product has been recalled, and no regulator or court has found any Knorr product unsafe. The four ingredients at issue are permitted in food.
Who would be covered by the proposed classes?
Everyone in the United States who bought the products during the applicable limitations period, plus a New York subclass of purchasers who reside in New York. No class has been certified, so the definitions are not final and could narrow.
What should I do if I bought Knorr Sides?
Nothing is required and there is nothing to file. If the case ever produces a settlement, a court-approved administrator would announce it and any claim process publicly. Keeping receipts or store loyalty records is reasonable but not necessary at this stage.
Sources
• Lisa v. Unilever United States, Inc. — Class Action Complaint, No. 7:26-cv-06536 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 30, 2026).• CourtListener — Unilever United States federal docket search
• Justia — Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., opinion granting motion to dismiss (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 18, 2024)
• Justia — Ward v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., opinion denying motion to dismiss (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 26, 2025)
• 21 C.F.R. § 101.22 — FDA definition of a chemical preservative
• 7 C.F.R. § 205.605 — USDA National List, synthetic substances allowed in organic processing
• USDA Agricultural Marketing Service — Citric Acid technical evaluation report
• FDA — Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives & Colors
• U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. — Hon. Nelson S. Román
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.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Allegations Only
Case Title
Lisa v. Unilever United States, Inc.
Case Number
7:26-cv-06536
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (White Plains)
Judge
Hon. Nelson S. Román
Date Filed
July 30, 2026
Defendant
Unilever United States, Inc.
Products
25 Knorr Rice Sides, Pasta Sides and Noodles Sides varieties labeled “No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives”
Claims
New York GBL § 349; New York GBL § 350; breach of express warranty; unjust enrichment
Official Court Source
CourtListener Docket Search
