Published
October 12, 2026
People who bought Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Unilever United States and its subsidiary Conopco sell the mayo as made with “100% avocado oil” while its oil is not authentic avocado oil. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes two class action complaints. The statements below are unproven allegations. Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, 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?
Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise is the subject of two proposed class actions filed in California federal courts in September 2026. Both allege that the mayonnaise is named, labeled and advertised as made with avocado oil, and online as “100% avocado oil,” while the oil inside is not compositionally consistent with authentic avocado oil. Both rely on a July 2026 study by food scientists at the University of California, Davis.The first, Gomez Alvarez v. Conopco, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10397, was filed September 14, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. The second, Harbist v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05339, was filed September 16, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego. The San Diego case names both Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc., which the complaint says does business as Kensington & Sons, the distributor listed on the jar. The Los Angeles case names Conopco alone.
Neither case is a settlement. There is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline. This page reflects the complaints as filed, and none of the claims 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
two suits: filed September 14, 2026 (C.D. Cal.) and September 16, 2026 (S.D. Cal.) · allegations only · no settlement
What’s Alleged
“Avocado Oil” Mayo Whose Oil Allegedly Is Not Authentic Avocado Oil
according to the complaints, a UC Davis study classified both tested lots as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil
Product
Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise
all sizes, including the 12-oz jar, 12-oz squeeze bottle and 24-oz and 32-oz jars · Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Kensington & Sons
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
What the Jar and the Listings Say
The complaints point to three places where the avocado oil claim appears. The first is the product name itself: “Avocado Oil Mayonnaise” runs across the front of every jar beneath the Sir Kensington’s brand. The second is the ingredient statement, which the San Diego complaint quotes in full as “Avocado Oil, Certified Humane Cage Free Egg Yolks, Water, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Lime Juice Concentrate, Citric Acid, Lime Oil.” Avocado oil is the first ingredient and the only oil listed, with no blend or “and/or” statement.The third is online marketing. Both complaints quote the brand’s product page describing the mayonnaise as “Paleo and Keto certified, 100% avocado oil.” The San Diego complaint adds a line from the same page referring to “expeller pressed 100% avocado oil” and an Amazon listing stating the mayo is “made with 100% avocado oil.” The Los Angeles complaint quotes the Amazon listing as describing “the highest quality, non-GMO ingredients like 100% avocado oil.”
The San Diego complaint also contrasts the product with Sir Kensington’s Classic Mayonnaise, which it says is made with sunflower oil and labeled that way. Its argument is that the company knows how to disclose a different oil when it uses one. The named plaintiff in that case says she paid $12.79 for a 12-ounce jar at a San Diego grocery store in September 2026, about $1.07 an ounce. The named plaintiff in the Los Angeles case says he bought two 12-ounce units on Amazon in December 2025 for $17.98.
What the UC Davis Study Reported, According to the Complaints
Both complaints rest on a peer-reviewed study, “Authenticity of avocado and olive oils used as ingredients in commercially processed foods,” by Natalie Lopez-Alvarez, Xueqi Li, Benjamin Vizgordiski and Selina C. Wang, published in the journal Applied Food Research in July 2026. As the complaints describe it, the researchers tested 37 chips, mayonnaises and salad dressings that listed avocado oil or olive oil as their only oil, buying two production lots of each in 2025 and 2026, and compared the fatty acids and sterols in the extracted oil with the international Codex Alimentarius standard for avocado oil. The complaints say a product information file accompanying the study identifies Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise as Sample Nos. 63 and 64.According to both complaints, neither Sir Kensington’s lot was classified as consistent with authentic avocado oil. The Los Angeles complaint, citing the study’s supplemental tables, gives the specifics: both samples fell outside the Codex ranges for palmitic, palmitoleic and stearic acid, with palmitoleic acid at 1.2% against an expected 4.0% to 17.1%; stigmasterol measured 6.6% and 6.9% against an expected 0.3% to 2.0%; and cis-vaccenic acid, which the researchers treat as a key marker of avocado oil, came in at 1.6% against 5.5% to 7.5% for authentic avocado oil, which that complaint says is at or near the level reported for high-oleic sunflower oil.
The San Diego complaint frames the result against the rest of the category. It says 10 of the 14 avocado oil mayonnaise samples in the study, or 71%, were classified as inconsistent, and that the four that passed all came from one competing brand. Across every avocado oil-labeled product, the complaints quote the study as finding that 89% showed patterns inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. The study did not identify a specific replacement oil; the complaints allege the profiles point to cheaper refined vegetable or seed oils, noting that many avocado oil samples clustered near a comparison sample made with canola, corn, soybean and/or sunflower oil.
The complaints also say the researchers made model mayonnaise in the lab from a reference avocado oil and found that emulsification shifted fatty acids by no more than 0.3% and sterols by no more than 0.5%, too little, in the researchers’ view as quoted, to explain the deviations in the commercial products. That is the plaintiffs’ answer to the likely objection that making mayonnaise changes the oil’s chemistry.
The same research underpins the other avocado oil suits filed since the study came out, including the Chosen Foods case over its avocado oil mayos and dressings. OCA’s avocado oil lawsuit tracker lists every case, court and status in one place.
How the Two Lawsuits Compare
The two cases target the same product and the same study, but they were brought by different firms and differ in whom they sue and how broadly they plead. The Los Angeles case was filed by Gucovschi Law Firm, PLLC. The San Diego case was filed by Swigart Law Group, APC and Shay Legal, APC. Neither complaint refers to the other.Defendants: the Los Angeles complaint sues only Conopco, Inc., which it describes as the company that manufactures, markets and distributes the mayo. The San Diego complaint adds Unilever United States, Inc., alleging Unilever acquired the Sir Kensington’s brand in 2017 and that Kensington & Sons, LLC merged into Conopco on November 24, 2025, leaving Conopco responsible for that company’s obligations.
Claims: both bring California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law on behalf of California buyers. The Los Angeles complaint adds a count under other states’ consumer protection statutes, an express warranty count for a multi-state subclass and unjust enrichment for the nationwide class. The San Diego complaint pleads express warranty, the implied warranty of merchantability, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment on behalf of the nationwide class, with the California subclass as the alternative.
Scope: the San Diego complaint estimates the nationwide class in the millions and the California subclass in at least the hundreds of thousands. The Los Angeles complaint says its classes number in the thousands. Both figures are the plaintiffs’ estimates made on information and belief.
The Legal Theory, and What Is Still Untested
Both complaints describe the alleged conduct as economic adulteration. They cite the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which treats a food as adulterated if a valuable ingredient has been omitted or substituted in whole or in part, and as misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading or if it is sold under the name of another food. They also cite the FDA rule requiring ingredients to be listed by their common or usual names. Private parties generally cannot sue under that federal law, so both complaints route the claims through California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, which adopts the federal food-labeling regulations as state law, and use those violations as predicates for the Unfair Competition Law. The San Diego complaint argues at length that the claims are not preempted because they impose requirements identical to federal ones.The complaints present only the plaintiffs’ side, and neither quotes any public statement from Unilever or Conopco about the study. The record so far also has limits that a defense could press. The study tested two lots bought in 2025 and 2026, and the San Diego complaint itself quotes the researchers cautioning that their results reflect only the lots analyzed at a single point in time and are not intended to represent ongoing manufacturing practices. The allegation that every jar sold over a multiyear class period contains the same oil is made on information and belief. Food-labeling cases are also commonly contested on preemption, on whether a reasonable consumer would be misled, and on whether a price premium can be measured across a class.
Who Would Be Covered, and What the Lawsuits Seek
The San Diego complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone who bought the mayonnaise in the United States for personal, family or household use, not resale, from four years before the September 16, 2026 filing through the date of class notice, plus a California subclass that counts online orders delivered to a California address. The Los Angeles complaint proposes a nationwide class of U.S. buyers for personal use over the longest period the law allows, a California subclass, and two multi-state subclasses for its consumer protection and warranty counts. Both exclude the companies, their officers and the judges assigned to the cases, and the San Diego complaint also excludes claims for personal injury.Both complaints ask the court to certify the classes, declare the labeling unlawful, and award damages, including punitive damages under the counts that allow them, plus restitution, interest and attorneys’ fees. The San Diego complaint asks for an order barring the avocado oil representation unless the oil in the product actually conforms to avocado oil standards, and for corrective disclosures. Under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, both currently seek only an injunction and fees, because that law requires a 30-day notice letter before a consumer can seek damages. The Los Angeles complaint says its letter was sent August 28, 2026; the San Diego complaint says its letter was being mailed alongside the filing. Each reserves the right to add damages later. None of this is an award, and no class has been certified.
What Happens Next
Both cases are at their earliest stage, and this page reflects the complaints as filed. The San Diego case is assigned to Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, with Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu, and the docket shows summonses returned executed as to Unilever on September 17 and Conopco on September 18, 2026. The usual next step is a response from the defendants, which in food-labeling cases is often a motion to dismiss rather than an answer. If the claims survive, the parties would exchange evidence, including the companies’ oil sourcing and testing records, which the San Diego complaint says are in the defendants’ sole possession, before any ruling on class certification. When overlapping suits are pending in different federal districts, the parties sometimes seek to transfer or coordinate them. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed or settled before any payment, and there is no guarantee either case produces a recovery.Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
Nothing is required at this stage. There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund, and no class has been certified in either case. If either case later reaches a settlement or a judgment for the class, a court-approved notice would explain who is covered and how class members could take part.Questions
Is there a Sir Kensington’s settlement or claim form?
No. Both cases are newly filed complaints, not settlements. There is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline, and no class has been certified. Unilever and Conopco have not been found liable.
What did the UC Davis study find about Sir Kensington’s mayo?
According to both complaints, a peer-reviewed UC Davis study published in Applied Food Research in July 2026 tested two production lots of Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise, identified as Sample Nos. 63 and 64, and classified neither as compositionally consistent with authentic avocado oil. The Los Angeles complaint says both lots had about 1.2% palmitoleic acid and 1.6% cis-vaccenic acid, below the ranges it cites for authentic avocado oil. The study did not name a specific substitute oil; the complaints allege the profile points to cheaper vegetable or seed oils.
Why are there two Sir Kensington’s lawsuits?
Two different law firms filed separate proposed class actions over the same product and the same study. Gomez Alvarez v. Conopco, Inc. was filed September 14, 2026 in the Central District of California against Conopco alone. Harbist v. Unilever United States, Inc. was filed September 16, 2026 in the Southern District of California against both Unilever United States and Conopco, which does business as Kensington & Sons. Each proposes a nationwide class and a California subclass.
Which Sir Kensington’s products are in the lawsuits?
Only Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise. The San Diego complaint says that includes every size and package, including the 12-ounce jar, the 12-ounce squeeze bottle and the 24-ounce and 32-ounce jars. The complaints contrast it with Sir Kensington’s Classic Mayonnaise, which the San Diego complaint says is made with sunflower oil and labeled that way.
Does anyone need to keep a receipt or jar right now?
Nothing is required at this stage because there is no claim process. If either case later settles or ends in a judgment for the class, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and what, if anything, class members would need to provide.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Harbist v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05339-RBM-SBC (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 16, 2026) — complaint PDF and docket on CourtListener• Class Action Complaint, Gomez Alvarez v. Conopco, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10397 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 14, 2026) — complaint PDF and docket on CourtListener
• Lopez-Alvarez et al., “Authenticity of avocado and olive oils used as ingredients in commercially processed foods,” Applied Food Research 6:102389 (2026), as described in the complaints
• Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(b) and 343(a)(1), (b); 21 C.F.R. § 101.4(a)(1)
• California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 109875 et seq., including § 110100(a)
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaints in Harbist v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05339 (S.D. Cal.), and Gomez Alvarez v. Conopco, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10397 (C.D. Cal.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news and information site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with the plaintiffs’ counsel, Unilever United States, Inc. or Conopco, Inc. The allegations have not been proven in court. This article is general information about the cases. 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
Harbist v. Unilever United States, Inc.
Case Number
3:26-cv-05339-RBM-SBC
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Judge
Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu
Date Filed
September 16, 2026
Defendant
Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Kensington & Sons
Products or Conduct
Sir Kensington’s Avocado Oil Mayonnaise, all sizes · “Avocado Oil” name, ingredient list and “100% avocado oil” marketing
Claims
Cal. CLRA · UCL · FAL · express warranty · implied warranty · intentional misrepresentation · unjust enrichment
Related Case
Gomez Alvarez v. Conopco, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-10397 (C.D. Cal., filed September 14, 2026)
Class Status
Not certified in either case — complaint stage
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Related Complaint
Read the Gomez Alvarez Complaint (PDF)
Related Docket
View the Gomez Alvarez Docket on CourtListener
