Published
October 12, 2026
People who bought Sensible Portions Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt may be covered by a proposed class action alleging The Hain Celestial Group labels the snack as made with avocado oil while it contains undisclosed 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 Hain Celestial Group, Inc. 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?
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., which does business as Sensible Portions, is facing a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over its Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt. The case, Walsh v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10893, was filed September 23, 2026 by KalielGold PLLC. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint alleges that the bag tells shoppers the snack is “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” and lists avocado oil as its only oil, while the oil inside is actually cheaper seed oil that the label never discloses. It relies on a peer-reviewed University of California, Davis study, published in July 2026, that the complaint says tested two production lots of the Veggie Straws and classified both as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. The named plaintiff, a California resident, says he bought the snack in August 2026 because of the avocado oil claim. None of this has been proven, and Hain Celestial has not been found liable.
The suit is one of a series of proposed class actions filed against snack and condiment brands since the UC Davis study appeared. OCA lists them, with courts, case numbers and status, on its avocado oil class action lawsuit tracker.
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 23, 2026 · C.D. California · allegations only · no settlement
What’s Alleged
“Made With Avocado Oil” Snack Said to Contain Undisclosed Seed Oils
the complaint cites a July 2026 UC Davis study that classified two lots of the product as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil
Product and Who’s Covered
Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt
proposed nationwide class of U.S. buyers for personal use · California subclass
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
What the Label Says, According to the Complaint
The complaint focuses on a single product, Sensible Portions Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt, which it says is sold online and at major grocery chains including Walmart, Target, Costco and Whole Foods Market. According to the complaint, the front of the bag carries “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” in bold type inside a bright green banner next to a large picture of an avocado, and the ingredient list on the back names avocado oil as the only oil.The complaint argues that the two statements together tell a shopper avocado oil is the snack’s only oil, and that nothing on the package says otherwise. It says shoppers who want to avoid highly refined seed oils look for avocado oil instead and pay more for it, and that the named plaintiff would not have bought the snack, or would have paid less, had he known what the complaint alleges about its oil.
What the UC Davis Study Reported, as the Complaint Describes It
The complaint’s evidence is a study by researchers in 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 July 2026. According to the complaint, the researchers bought chips, mayonnaises and salad dressings labeled with avocado oil or olive oil from online retailers and California stores in 2025 and 2026, tested two production lots of each of 37 products, and compared the fatty acids and plant sterols in the extracted oil against the international Codex Alimentarius standards for named vegetable oils and olive oils.The complaint says the study allowed some leeway before calling a sample a mismatch: a single marker off by no more than 10% still counted as consistent with authentic oil, and only samples with multiple deviations, or patterns that did not fit the reference profile, were classified as inconsistent. It says the researchers also tested whether frying and emulsifying could explain the results and found only minor shifts.
By the complaint’s account, 48 of the 54 avocado oil samples in the study were classified as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, including 93% of the chip samples, while only 1 of 20 olive oil samples was. The two Sensible Portions Veggie Straws lots, identified in the study as samples 29 and 30, were both in the inconsistent group, and the complaint says their profiles looked more like lower-cost refined oils such as canola, corn, soybean or sunflower oil. The complaint also points to two earlier UC Davis studies, from 2020 and 2023, that it says found most bottled avocado oils tested were rancid or mixed with other oils, and argues that Hain Celestial therefore knew or should have known its label was likely misleading.
The complaint does not describe any testing of its own. Its account of the study, and its reading of what the results mean for the product, are allegations, not findings by any court.
The Legal Claims
The complaint pleads five counts. Four are brought for a proposed California subclass:• California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, under its “unfair,” “fraudulent” and “unlawful” prongs.
• California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.
• California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, citing the bans on representing that goods have ingredients or qualities they lack, are of a grade they are not, or are advertised with intent not to sell them as advertised. The complaint says counsel sent Hain Celestial the written notice the statute requires and that, for now, this count seeks only public injunctive relief.
• Breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code § 2313, on the theory that “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” and the ingredient list were promises that became part of the bargain.
The fifth count, unjust enrichment, is brought for a proposed nationwide class and asks that Hain Celestial give up money it received from sales of the product.
Who Would Be Covered
The complaint proposes two groups. The nationwide class is everyone in the United States who bought the product for personal use, not for resale or distribution, within the applicable statute of limitations. The California subclass is the same group limited to people in California. Hain Celestial and its affiliates, officers, directors and employees, their immediate families, and the judges assigned to the case and their staff are excluded, and the complaint reserves the right to change the definitions later.A proposed class is only a request. A judge has to certify it, or the case has to settle, before anyone in it could receive money.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to certify the class, declare the conduct unlawful and bar Hain Celestial from continuing it on behalf of the general public. It also seeks restitution and disgorgement, actual damages, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and demands a jury trial.It does not say what the named plaintiff paid or put a dollar figure on the class’s losses. To support federal jurisdiction it alleges that the class’s combined claims exceed $5 million. On price, it cites the UC Davis study’s survey of retail prices, which found chips labeled with avocado oil selling for $0.30 to $2.00 an ounce, compared with $0.44 to $0.62 an ounce for chips made with vegetable oil.
What Happens Next?
Hain Celestial will respond to the complaint, often with a motion to dismiss in food-labeling cases like this one. Several questions are open. One is whether two lots bought in 2025 and 2026 can show what was in every bag sold during the class period. Another is whether a finding that the oil is “inconsistent” with avocado oil proves what the complaint alleges about seed oils. The complaint itself frames its claim as a range, from more seed oil than avocado oil at a minimum to no authentic avocado oil at all. A court will also look at whether a reasonable shopper reads “made with avocado oil” as a promise that avocado oil is the only oil.If the case survives, class certification would come later. It could also be dismissed, dropped by the plaintiff or settled. Suits against different brands over the same study are separate cases and move on their own schedules.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
Nothing is required at this stage because there is no claim process. There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund. If the case ever reaches a settlement or judgment, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to take part.Questions
Is there a Sensible Portions Veggie Straws settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline, and there is no guarantee the case ever produces a payment.
Which Sensible Portions product is named in the lawsuit?
One product: Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt. The complaint describes a front label reading “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” in a green banner beside an avocado image, and a back-panel ingredient list naming avocado oil as the only oil. Other Sensible Portions snacks are not named in the complaint.
Does the lawsuit say the Veggie Straws contain no avocado oil at all?
The complaint frames it as a range. At a minimum, it alleges, the snack contains far more seed oil than avocado oil; at most, the oil is so different from authentic avocado oil that the product cannot be said to contain any. Both claims rest on a 2026 UC Davis study that the complaint says classified two tested lots as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. These are unproven allegations, and Hain Celestial has not been found liable.
Did the plaintiff have the Veggie Straws tested?
The complaint does not describe any testing commissioned by the plaintiff. It relies on the published UC Davis study, which it says tested two production lots of the product as part of a wider survey of foods labeled with avocado oil or olive oil.
Has Hain Celestial faced other class actions?
Hain Celestial is also a defendant in an unrelated securities class action brought by investors who bought Hain stock between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017, over how the company reported sales and revenue. The defendants agreed to a $35 million settlement in that case while denying wrongdoing; OCA covers it on its Hain Celestial securities settlement page. It has nothing to do with Veggie Straws or avocado oil.
Do I need to keep receipts for the Veggie Straws lawsuit?
Nothing is required at this stage because there is no claim process. If the case ever reaches a settlement or judgment, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and what, if any, proof of purchase a claim would require.
Sources
• Class action complaint, Walsh v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10893 (C.D. Cal., filed September 23, 2026), the source of every allegation and study figure above.• The case docket on CourtListener.
• 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.
• Codex Alimentarius, Standard for Named Vegetable Oils (CXS 210-1999).
• Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500; Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; Cal. Com. Code § 2313.
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Walsh v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10893 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiff’s counsel or The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. 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
Walsh v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-10893
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Date Filed
September 23, 2026
Defendant
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., d/b/a Sensible Portions
Product
Sensible Portions Garden Veggie Straws Made With Avocado Oil Sea Salt
Claims
Cal. UCL · FAL · CLRA · express warranty · unjust enrichment
Class Status
Not certified — proposed nationwide class and California subclass
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
