Published
September 25, 2026
Updated
October 12, 2026
People who bought Siete Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips or Siete Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips labeled “Made With Avocado Oil” may be covered by proposed class actions alleging Siete Foods and PepsiCo sold chips blended 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. Garza Food Ventures, LLC (Siete Foods) and PepsiCo, 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?
A proposed class action filed September 17, 2026 claims that two Siete chips sold as “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” are not made entirely with avocado oil and instead contain cheaper seed oils. The case is Floro v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-08115, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names Garza Food Ventures, LLC, which does business as Siete Foods, and PepsiCo, Inc., which the complaint says operates the Siete brand with it.It is not the only suit over these chips. Five more proposed class actions, filed between August 14 and October 5, 2026 in California, Florida, New York and Texas, make the same core claim; they are described below. The earliest known, filed in federal court in California on August 14, 2026, predates Floro by more than a month.
Each complaint is at an early stage. No judge has ruled on the claims in any of them, and nothing has been proven.
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
Floro filed September 17, 2026 · S.D.N.Y. · related suits in N.D. Cal., M.D. Fla., E.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex. and S.D.N.Y.
Products Named
Two Siete chips
Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips · Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips · both labeled “Made With Avocado Oil” · one later suit reaches other Siete avocado oil products
Proposed Class
U.S. buyers
nationwide class in each suit, plus California, New York or Florida subclasses
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
Which Products Are Involved?
The complaint names two products:• Siete Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Made with Avocado Oil
• Siete Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips Made with Avocado Oil
It says the plaintiff bought the potato chips as part of a Siete chips variety pack at a California grocery store in August 2026. Other Siete flavors and products are not named in that complaint. One of the later suits, described below, defines the products more broadly.
What the Complaint Alleges
The complaint argues that shoppers read “MADE WITH AVOCADO OIL” to mean the chips are made entirely with avocado oil, and that the chips instead contain cheaper seed oils. It says shoppers pay more for avocado oil because many see it as healthier, and that many consumers try to avoid seed oils. Buyers, it claims, paid a premium they would not have paid had they known.The evidence it relies on is a 2026 peer-reviewed study by food scientists at the University of California, Davis, published in Applied Food Research, that tested foods labeled as made with avocado oil. According to the complaint, the researchers tested two production lots of each of the two Siete chips and classified all four samples as compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. The complaint also says the researchers fried their own chips in pure avocado oil to rule out cooking as the cause, and found that frying changed the oil’s profile only slightly.
These are the plaintiff’s characterizations of the study. Siete and PepsiCo have not answered them, and no court has evaluated the testing.
Who Could Be Included?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone who bought the products in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations, a California class, and a California subclass of people who bought them for personal, family or household use. The companies, their employees and affiliates, and the judges assigned to the case are excluded.These are proposed definitions. A court decides later whether any class is certified and what it covers.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The claims are brought under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, along with breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment and common-law fraud. The plaintiff asks for damages, restitution, an order stopping the labeling at issue, and attorneys’ fees.The complaint says a notice letter under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act was mailed to the companies on or around September 17, 2026, and that the plaintiff will amend to seek damages under that law if they do not respond within 30 days.
Part of a Wave of Avocado Oil Suits
The Floro plaintiff’s lawyers filed it as related to an earlier case in the same court, Golden v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-07389, filed August 31, 2026, and the court referred the new case to Judge Philip M. Halpern, who is handling Golden. That earlier suit names PepsiCo alone, proposes a nationwide class, and also covers Simply Tostitos Sea Salt & Avocado Oil Tortilla Chips; on September 25, 2026, the judge gave PepsiCo more time to respond to it. See our Simply Tostitos and Siete avocado oil lawsuit page for details.The same study has been cited in suits against other brands, including the Sprouts avocado oil chips lawsuit and the Utz Boulder Canyon and Good Health avocado oil lawsuits.
More Lawsuits Over Siete Chips
Five more proposed class actions make the same core claim about Siete chips, and each relies on the same UC Davis study. No court has ruled on any of them.Bayer v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-08455, was filed August 14, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It is the earliest known suit over Siete chips, filed more than two weeks before Golden and more than a month before Floro. It names only the Siete company, which the complaint says has been a wholly owned PepsiCo subsidiary since January 2025, and it covers the same two chips. Two California shoppers propose a nationwide class and a California subclass, with claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The complaint puts the potato chips at roughly $0.83 to $1.00 an ounce and the tortilla chips at roughly $0.67 to $0.87 an ounce, against about $0.50 an ounce for a bag of Lay’s Classic made with vegetable oil. It seeks restitution, damages for breach of warranty, an order stopping the labeling at issue, and attorneys’ fees; its Consumers Legal Remedies Act count asks only for an injunction.
Jung v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-02179, was filed August 20, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The court struck the original complaint by order on August 26, and an amended complaint was filed August 28. It also names only the Siete company and covers the same two chips. A Jacksonville shopper proposes a nationwide class and a Florida subclass, with two claims: a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim for the Florida subclass and an unjust enrichment claim for the nationwide class. It goes further than the other complaints into the study’s per-sample data, saying the oil recovered from the Siete chips contained 0.6% to 1.5% palmitoleic acid against a Codex range of 4.0% to 17.1% for avocado oil, and that each of the four Siete samples fell outside the avocado oil range on at least eleven markers. It also alleges the chips are adulterated and misbranded under the Florida Food Safety Act. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, an injunction barring the avocado oil claim unless the oil conforms to the standard for avocado oil and requiring supplier verification and lot testing, and attorneys’ fees.
Tsapelas v. Garza Food Ventures LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05571, was filed September 9, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, eight days before Floro. It names the Siete company, which it calls Siete Family Foods, but not PepsiCo, and it covers the same two chips. Two New York shoppers propose a nationwide class and a New York subclass, with claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, intentional misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The complaint says the study identified the potato chips as samples 13 and 14 and the tortilla chips as samples 15 and 16, and classified every sample as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. It seeks damages, including statutory damages under the New York law, restitution, an order stopping the labeling at issue, and attorneys’ fees.
Brand v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 1:26-cv-02578, was filed September 18, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, the district where the complaint says Siete has its headquarters. It also names only the Siete company, and it is narrower: it covers one product, Siete Sea Salt Kettle Cooked Potato Chips. A California shopper proposes a nationwide class and a California subclass, with claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. It seeks damages, restitution, an order stopping the labeling at issue, and attorneys’ fees.
Lewis v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-08794, was filed October 5, 2026 in the Southern District of New York, the same court as Floro and Golden. It names both PepsiCo and Garza Food Ventures, and it reaches further than the other Siete suits. It defines the products as the two sea salt chips “together with other Siete food products claiming to contain exclusively avocado oil,” and lists other kettle chip and Maíz flavors, grain-free tortilla chips, puff snacks, taco shells, refried beans and sauces. Citing the study’s supplemental tables, the complaint says none of the four Siete samples exceeded 1.5% palmitoleic acid, against a Codex range of 4.0% to 17.1% for avocado oil. A California shopper proposes a nationwide class and a California subclass, with claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and for breach of contract. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, an injunction and attorneys’ fees. On October 5, 2026, the plaintiff also filed a statement of relatedness asking that the case be treated as related to Golden; that is a request, not a ruling.
These are allegations in each case. No court has ruled on any of them.
What Happens Next
The companies will respond to the complaint, often with a motion to dismiss. The court may also decide whether to handle this case together with the earlier Siete and Tostitos case, and the Lewis plaintiff has asked that Lewis be treated as related to it too. The other Siete suits are pending in separate federal courts in California, Florida, New York and Texas: Bayer before Judge Trina L. Thompson, who has set an initial case management conference for November 19, 2026; Jung before Judge Marcia Morales Howard; Tsapelas before Judge Pamela K. Chen; and Brand before Judge Andrew B. Davis. Each moves on its own schedule unless the cases are combined or transferred. There is no settlement and nothing for shoppers to file; if the case is certified or settles, class members would typically be notified and told how to take part.Questions
Which Siete chips are named in the lawsuit?
Two products: Siete Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Made with Avocado Oil and Siete Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips Made with Avocado Oil. The Floro complaint says the plaintiff bought the potato chips in a Siete variety pack. Other Siete flavors are not named in that complaint. A later suit, Lewis v. PepsiCo, Inc., defines the products more broadly to include other Siete products it says are labeled as made with avocado oil.
What does the UC Davis study have to do with the Siete lawsuit?
The complaint relies on a 2026 peer-reviewed study by UC Davis food scientists, published in Applied Food Research, that tested chips and other foods labeled as made with avocado oil. According to the complaint, the study tested two production lots of each of the two Siete chips and classified all four samples as compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Siete and PepsiCo have not responded to the complaint in court, and no court has evaluated the testing.
Can I join the Siete avocado oil class action?
Not yet. This is a newly filed complaint. No class has been certified, there is no settlement, and there is no claim form. People who bought the named chips do not need to do anything now; if the case is certified or settles, class members are typically notified and told how to take part.
Is this the only avocado oil lawsuit against Siete?
No. At least seven proposed class actions involve Siete chips. The earliest known, Bayer v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC (N.D. Cal., filed August 14, 2026), names only the Siete company, as do Jung v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC (M.D. Fla., filed August 20, 2026), Tsapelas v. Garza Food Ventures LLC (E.D.N.Y., filed September 9, 2026) and Brand v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC (W.D. Tex., filed September 18, 2026). Golden v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-07389 (S.D.N.Y.), filed August 31, 2026, names PepsiCo over Simply Tostitos and the same two Siete chips; the Floro plaintiff's lawyers filed their case as related to it, and the court referred Floro to Judge Philip M. Halpern, who is handling Golden. Lewis v. PepsiCo, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., filed October 5, 2026) names both PepsiCo and Garza Food Ventures, and its plaintiff has asked that it be treated as related to Golden.
Read the Complaint
Sources
• CourtListener docket — Floro v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-08115 (S.D.N.Y.)• Class action complaint (Dkt. 1, filed September 17, 2026) (PDF)
• Lopez-Alvarez et al., “Authenticity of Avocado and Olive Oils Used as Ingredients in Commercially Processed Foods,” Applied Food Research (2026)
• CourtListener docket — Golden v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-07389 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Law360 — PepsiCo Sued Over “Made With Avocado Oil” Chip Claims (Sept. 1, 2026)
• CourtListener docket — Bayer v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-08455 (N.D. Cal.)
• Bayer class action complaint (Dkt. 1, filed August 14, 2026) (PDF)
• CourtListener docket — Jung v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-02179 (M.D. Fla.)
• Jung amended class action complaint (Dkt. 9, filed August 28, 2026) (PDF)
• CourtListener docket — Tsapelas v. Garza Food Ventures LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05571 (E.D.N.Y.)
• Tsapelas class action complaint (Dkt. 1, filed September 9, 2026) (PDF)
• CourtListener docket — Brand v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 1:26-cv-02578 (W.D. Tex.)
• Brand class action complaint (Dkt. 1, filed September 18, 2026) (PDF)
• CourtListener docket — Lewis v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-08794 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Lewis class action complaint (Dkt. 1, filed October 5, 2026) (PDF)
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed
Case Title
Floro v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC
Case Number
1:26-cv-08115
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Date Filed
September 17, 2026
Related Case
Bayer v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-08455 (N.D. Cal.)
filed August 14, 2026 · earliest known Siete suit · Judge Trina L. Thompson · initial case management conference November 19, 2026
Related Case
Jung v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 3:26-cv-02179 (M.D. Fla.)
filed August 20, 2026 · amended complaint August 28, 2026 · Florida subclass · Judge Marcia Morales Howard, Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale
Related Case
Golden v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-07389 (S.D.N.Y.)
filed August 31, 2026 · PepsiCo only · also covers Simply Tostitos
Related Case
Tsapelas v. Garza Food Ventures LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05571 (E.D.N.Y.)
filed September 9, 2026 · New York subclass · Judge Pamela K. Chen, Magistrate Judge James R. Cho
Related Case
Brand v. Garza Food Ventures, LLC d/b/a Siete Family Foods, No. 1:26-cv-02578 (W.D. Tex.)
filed September 18, 2026 · potato chips only · Judge Andrew B. Davis
Related Case
Lewis v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-08794 (S.D.N.Y.)
filed October 5, 2026 · names PepsiCo and Garza Food Ventures · relatedness to Golden requested October 5, 2026
Official Website
CourtListener Docket
