Published
August 23, 2026
Updated
October 16, 2026
Shoppers who bought Boulder Canyon or Good Health chips sold on an avocado oil claim may be covered by seven pending proposed class actions, filed in California, New York, Illinois, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, alleging Utz makes them with a blend of cheaper oils; an eighth was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 1, 2026. The Illinois complaint attaches independent laboratory testing of six bags; the Louisiana complaint takes aim at Boulder Canyon’s 2026 “Be for Real” ad campaign. 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. Utz Quality Foods, LLC and Utz Brands, Inc. have not been found liable, no court has ruled on the merits in any of the eight cases, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. No product has been recalled in connection with these claims, and no court or regulator has found any product mislabeled. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Eight proposed class actions have accused Utz Quality Foods, LLC or its parent Utz Brands, Inc. of selling potato chips on an avocado oil claim when, according to the complaints, the chips are made with a blend of oils rather than avocado oil alone. The earliest known, Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, was filed on August 3, 2026 in California state court in Santa Cruz County and removed by Utz on September 10 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:26-cv-10224); its plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice on October 1, 2026, leaving seven cases pending. Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. (Case No. 2:26-cv-01829, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana) was filed on August 19, 2026 by a New Orleans shopper over Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips and snacks. The next day came Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC (Case No. 2:26-cv-05126, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), filed on August 20, 2026 by a Long Island consumer over two products. Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-10514, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) was filed on August 31, 2026 by two Chicago shoppers, names thirteen Boulder Canyon products, and attaches its own laboratory testing.Three more federal suits followed in September: Maresca v. Utz Brands, Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-02644, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania) on September 15, Sanchez v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC (Case No. 3:26-cv-10578, Northern District of California) on September 16, and Allison v. Utz Brands, Inc. (Case No. 3:26-cv-10942, Northern District of California) on September 25. All three center on Boulder Canyon’s Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips and rely on the UC Davis study rather than testing of their own. An eighth, Brand v. Utz Brands, Inc. (Case No. 3:26-cv-11845, Northern District of California), was filed on October 14, 2026 and is the first to reach flavored Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips the study did not test.
The theory is economic. Nobody claims the chips are unsafe or made anyone sick — the oils the complaints say may have been substituted are ordinary edible oils. The claim is that avocado oil is a premium ingredient shoppers deliberately pay more for, that the front of the bag names it and nothing else, and that a reasonable shopper reads that as the oil the chips are fried in. The requested remedy is the price premium: the difference between what buyers paid and what the complaints say the chips were actually worth. Utz has not been found liable in any of the cases, and the allegations are unproven.
Status
Eight Suits Filed · Seven Pending
Filed August 3 – October 14, 2026 · E.D. La. · E.D.N.Y. · N.D. Ill. · M.D. Pa. · four in N.D. Cal., one of them removed from Santa Cruz County Superior Court and voluntarily dismissed without prejudice October 1, 2026 · no ruling on the merits
Products Named
Thirteen Boulder Canyon products, plus one Good Health
The Illinois complaint names thirteen Boulder Canyon avocado oil items; the New York complaint names Boulder Canyon Classic Sea Salt and Good Health Kettle Style 100% Avocado Oil; the Louisiana complaint covers all Boulder Canyon avocado oil-labeled snacks; the five newer suits center on Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle chips, and the October 14 California suit adds three flavored varieties
Core Allegation
An avocado oil label on chips allegedly fried in a blend of oils
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and fourteen other state statutes · New York GBL §§ 349 and 350 · Louisiana warranty, unfair trade practices and misrepresentation claims · California CLRA, UCL and FAL · Pennsylvania and North Carolina consumer protection laws
Proposed Classes
Five nationwide classes, plus state and multi-state classes
Nationwide in the New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Sanchez and Brand cases · fifteen jurisdictions in Illinois · California buyers only in Allison · no class certified in any case
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form, no deadline
The Illinois Complaint Brings Its Own Lab Results
The New York case leans on a published study about the avocado oil category and asks the court to infer that two Utz products belong to it. The Illinois complaint, filed eleven days later, does something a food-labeling complaint rarely does at the pleading stage: it commissioned testing of the specific bags its plaintiffs bought and put the numbers in the pleading.According to that complaint, six unopened bags of Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips — Classic Sea Salt Kettle, Cheddar Sour Cream, Hickory Barbecue and Thin and Crispy Classic Sea Salt — were sent to an independent laboratory in Oklahoma City that is certified by the American Oil Chemists' Society. The lab ran a fatty acid profile on each using AOCS method Ce 1-62, the gas chromatography procedure the international Codex standards use to characterize edible oils. The samples were received on August 21, 2026 and the certificates of analysis issued on August 24 and 25.
The complaint reports that all six bags fell outside the published ranges for avocado oil on three markers at once:
| Marker | Codex range for avocado oil | AOCS range | Reported in the six bags |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) | 4.0–17.1% | 3.0–9.0% | 0.67–0.97% |
| Stearic acid (C18:0) | 0.1–1.3% | 0.4–1.0% | 2.60–2.87% |
| Palmitic acid (C16:0) | 11.0–26.0% | 9.0–18% | 7.78–9.49% |
Low palmitoleic acid alongside elevated stearic acid is the same combination the UC Davis researchers described as pointing toward substitution or dilution with vegetable oils rather than toward any quirk of a particular avocado crop. The complaint says the lab also compared the results against the known profiles of six avocado cultivars — Hass, Fuerte, Bacon, Zutano, Reed and Pinkerton — and that every sample sat outside the range for all six.
The conclusion the complaint draws is deliberately modest, and that restraint is a litigation choice rather than an oversight: it does not assert the chips contain no avocado oil at all, only that avocado oil cannot be the only oil in them. A narrower allegation is a harder one to disprove.
The complaint also says the UC Davis researchers tested Boulder Canyon Classic Sea Salt Kettle Chips directly, and that both samples were classified as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Utz has not been found liable in any of the cases, and none of this has been tested by a court.
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.
The Louisiana Case Targets the “Be for Real” Campaign
The first suit filed in federal court came from New Orleans. Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. was filed on August 19, 2026 and assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrel James Papillion, with Magistrate Judge Eva J. Dossier. The plaintiff says he bought Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips at a New Orleans Costco many times over the years, most recently on July 22, 2026, when he paid $18.69 a unit, and that he read the words “Avocado Oil” on the front of the bag and the three-ingredient list on the back (“Potatoes, Avocado Oil, Sea Salt”) before buying.What sets this complaint apart is its focus on Utz’s own advertising. It says that on January 8, 2026, Utz launched Boulder Canyon’s first national brand campaign, “Be for Real,” and that a 19-second video on the brand’s Facebook page closes on three Boulder Canyon bags, with the avocado oil kettle chips in the center, above the words “Real Ingredients. Real Flavor. Real Standards.” The complaint calls that an authenticity promise that the UC Davis results, published about six months later, contradicted.
The complaint makes three other points:
- The label contrast. It says Boulder Canyon’s Honey Barbeque chips disclose “Sunflower Oil And/Or Safflower Oil” on the back and name no oil on the front, which it argues shows Utz knows how to disclose an oil blend and chose not to on the avocado oil bags.
- The frying defense. It says the UC Davis researchers fried model chips in authentic avocado oil and found the major fatty acids moved by less than 0.6 percent and cis-vaccenic acid, the key avocado marker, by only 0.1 percent, too little to explain the failing results.
- Knowledge. It argues Utz should have known about avocado oil adulteration because UC Davis’s 2020 study, which found 82 percent of avocado oil samples rancid or mixed with other oils, came out months before Boulder Canyon’s October 2020 Thin & Crispy avocado oil launch.
Five More Suits, in California and Pennsylvania
Four more cases over Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips reached the federal courts in September 2026, and a fifth followed in October. The four September cases each center on Boulder Canyon’s Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips, the product the UC Davis study identified as its Samples 1 and 2, and each relies on that study, which the complaints say classified both tested lots as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. None attaches laboratory testing of its own, and none names a Good Health product.• Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-10224 (N.D. Cal.). This is the earliest Utz filing known: it was filed on August 3, 2026 in the Superior Court of California for Santa Cruz County (No. 26CV02507), and Utz removed it to federal court in San Jose on September 10. The state-court complaint is not on the public federal docket, so what is known about it comes from Utz’s notice of removal. According to that notice, a Santa Cruz County shopper says she bought Boulder Canyon Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips sold as avocado oil chips at stores near her home, contends on the strength of the UC Davis study that the oil was not compositionally consistent with authentic avocado oil, and pleads the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and breach of express warranty for a California subclass and a multi-state express warranty class. The notice says Utz considers the claims meritless. To show that more than $5 million is at stake, it states that nationwide sales of the chips over the four-year class period have exceeded $4 million, a figure Utz offered for jurisdiction without conceding any damages. On October 1, 2026, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which lets a plaintiff end a case without a court order before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. The notice gives no reason. A dismissal without prejudice is not a ruling on the merits; it ends that case, and the claims can be filed again.
• Maresca v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02644 (M.D. Pa.), filed September 15, 2026 in Utz’s home district by The Weitz Firm and Wolf Popper on behalf of a North Carolina consumer. It names only Utz Brands, Inc. and covers Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips generally, which it says number at least ten products; the plaintiff says he bought the Classic Sea Salt chips several times. It quotes a Boulder Canyon web page stating that the products “are made exclusively with the oil or fat identified on the label—they are not mixed or blended with other oils or fats,” and quotes Utz’s chief executive on 2025 and 2026 earnings calls describing Boulder Canyon as a premium brand with a margin benefit. It also quotes the study’s supplementary data for the two Classic Sea Salt samples: palmitoleic acid of 1.0% in both against a 4.0–17.1% avocado oil range, and stearic acid of 2.6% and 2.5% against a 1.3% ceiling. It pleads three counts: the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and breach of contract for a nationwide class, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act for a North Carolina subclass. It is assigned to Judge Keli M. Neary.
• Sanchez v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-10578 (N.D. Cal.), filed September 16, 2026 by Levi & Korsinsky for two shoppers, one in San Francisco and one in Saratoga County, New York. It is expressly limited to the Classic Sea Salt Kettle chips and no other product. The complaint says the New York plaintiff paid $4.69 for a 5.25-ounce bag at Target, about 89 cents an ounce, against the 44 to 62 cents an ounce the study recorded for comparable chips labeled as fried in vegetable oil. It argues that because Boulder Canyon’s website says its suppliers test the oil and every lot arrives with a certificate of analysis, Utz had lot-level records of what the oil was. It pleads ten counts for a nationwide class from July 11, 2022, with California and New York subclasses: California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. It is assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.
• Allison v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10942 (N.D. Cal.), filed September 25, 2026 by Shamis & Gentile and Edelsberg Law for a Foster City shopper who says he bought a Boulder Canyon variety pack containing the chips at a Whole Foods in San Mateo that month. It attaches the study and its product list as exhibits and is limited to California: a class of California residents who bought the chips, and a consumer subclass. It pleads seven claims: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, express and implied warranty under the California Commercial Code, unjust enrichment, and common-law fraud.
• Brand v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-11845 (N.D. Cal.), filed October 14, 2026 in San Francisco by Migliaccio & Rathod and the Law Offices of Robert Mackey for three California shoppers, one in Huntington Beach and two in Sonoma County. It is the first of the cases to reach beyond the Classic Sea Salt chips to flavored varieties: it defines its products as Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt, Wavy Cheddar & Sour Cream, Hickory BBQ and Cheddar & Sour Cream chips. The complaint acknowledges that the UC Davis study tested only the Classic Sea Salt chips, not the flavored varieties two of its plaintiffs bought, and argues that the findings raise the same concern across Boulder Canyon chips sold as cooked in avocado oil. It quotes Boulder Canyon’s website describing the chips as made for “Health-Conscious Snackers” and pleads seven claims for a nationwide class with a California subclass: the False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, breach of express and implied warranty, common-law fraud and unjust enrichment.
The three newer federal California complaints say the plaintiffs sent Consumers Legal Remedies Act notice letters in September and, for now, seek only injunctive relief under that statute, with damages to follow if Utz does not act within 30 days. Four of the eight cases were filed in or removed to the Northern District of California, and three of them, Sanchez, Allison and Brand, remain pending there after the Bigler dismissal. A New York buyer of the Classic Sea Salt chips would fall within the proposed classes in both the New York case and Sanchez. These are allegations, and no court has ruled on any of them.
How the New York, Illinois and Louisiana Cases Differ
They target the same conduct but are built differently, and the differences matter for who could eventually be covered.• Products. The New York case names two items. The Illinois case names thirteen Boulder Canyon products and says the list is not exhaustive, reaching across the Kettle, Wavy, Thin & Crispy and Canyon Poppers lines and flavors from Sea Salt to Jalapeño Ranch. It does not name any Good Health product. The Louisiana case covers every Boulder Canyon avocado oil-labeled chip or snack, with no list of flavors, and does not name Good Health either.
• Class. The New York case pleads a nationwide class with a New York subclass. The Illinois case pleads a class limited to fifteen jurisdictions — Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington State and Washington, D.C. — on the theory that those consumer protection statutes are materially identical to Illinois's. The Louisiana case pleads a nationwide class reaching back to October 16, 2020, the day Utz announced the Thin & Crispy avocado oil line, with a Louisiana subclass.
• Counts. The New York case pleads state deceptive practices claims, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The Illinois case pleads two counts only: the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act for an Illinois subclass, and the other fourteen jurisdictions' consumer statutes for the rest. No warranty count, which sidesteps the fifty-state warranty problem the New York pleading invites. The Louisiana case pleads five counts under Louisiana law, described below.
• Evidence at filing. Category-level study versus product-specific testing, as described above. The Louisiana case relies on the UC Davis study plus Utz’s own advertising.
The Illinois case was assigned to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, with Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz designated. A status hearing is set for October 30, 2026, and the parties have been directed to file a joint status report and to discuss settlement beforehand — a routine scheduling order, not a signal about the merits. An amended complaint was filed the same day as the original; the docket describes it as correcting a plaintiff's name.
Seven pending cases against the same company over the same labeling, in five federal districts, is the pattern that often leads to a motion to consolidate before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or to some being stayed in favor of another.
Which Products Are Named
The New York complaint is narrow. It names two products by their full retail names and no others:| Product | Brand | Front-of-Bag Claim as Pleaded |
|---|---|---|
| Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips | Boulder Canyon | “Avocado Oil” |
| Kettle Style 100% Avocado Oil Potato Chips Sea Salt | Good Health | “100% Avocado Oil” |
The Illinois complaint reaches much further. It names thirteen Boulder Canyon avocado oil items and says the list is not exhaustive: Classic Sea Salt Kettle Chips, Wavy Sea Salt, Thin & Crispy Classic Sea Salt, Jalapeño Kettle, Sea Salt & Malt Vinegar Kettle, Hickory BBQ Kettle, Spicy Green Chili Kettle, Jalapeño Ranch Canyon Poppers, Aged White Cheddar Canyon Poppers, Wavy Cheddar & Sour Cream, Wavy Classic Grillo's Pickles, Thin & Crispy Cheddar & Sour Cream, and Thin & Crispy Jalapeño. It names no Good Health product.
The four September suits all center on the Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips, the Boulder Canyon product the UC Davis study tested. The Sanchez complaint defines its class by that product and no other; the Pennsylvania complaint reaches Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips generally and says Utz sells at least ten of them. The October 14 Brand complaint defines its products as the Classic Sea Salt chips plus the Wavy Cheddar & Sour Cream, Hickory BBQ and Cheddar & Sour Cream varieties, and acknowledges that the study did not test the flavored ones.
Both brands sit under Utz Brands, the Hanover, Pennsylvania snack company whose portfolio also includes Zapp's and Dirty Chips. Boulder Canyon came into that portfolio in December 2017 through the acquisition of Inventure Foods.
The two labels are not equally exposed. “100% Avocado Oil” is a quantitative claim with an obvious meaning, and it is the harder one for a defendant to argue a shopper misread. A bare “Avocado Oil” banner is closer to the front-label cases where the fight is over whether naming an ingredient promises it is the only one of its kind in the product.
The UC Davis Study Behind the Case
What makes this complaint different from a routine front-label suit is that it does not rest on a plaintiff's impression of a package. It rests on published science about the category.In July 2026, UC Davis researchers led by food science professor Selina Wang published a study in Applied Food Research that tested 54 samples of processed foods sold as made with avocado oil — two production lots each of 27 chips, mayonnaises and salad dressings bought from California stores and online retailers in 2025 and 2026. They reported that 48 of the 54 samples showed markers inconsistent with pure avocado oil, including 93 percent of the chips, 71 percent of the mayonnaises and every salad dressing tested. The method is the same chemical fingerprinting the complaint describes: authentic avocado oil has a characteristic fatty acid and sterol profile, and cheaper oils such as soybean leave a different signature.
The researchers also reported that avocado oil products generally carried higher shelf prices than conventional-oil equivalents, but that price was not a reliable predictor of authenticity — paying more did not mean getting the real thing. That finding is what a price-premium claim is built to use.
The study is category-level evidence: it establishes that adulteration is widespread in avocado oil chips generally, not that any particular bag was adulterated. The New York complaint is what applies it to two Utz products, and it does so without attaching lab reports, without saying which other oils it contends were found, and without identifying the samples. Those gaps are exactly where a motion to dismiss aims, and whether that pleading clears the bar is a live question.
The Illinois complaint filed eleven days later is built to close them, which is why the two cases are unlikely to fare identically on the same defense.
OCA has covered adjacent food-labeling fights running on similar logic, including a Knorr “no artificial flavors” complaint and a Costco Orgain protein powder case built on third-party testing.
What the Lawsuits Claim and Seek
The New York complaint pleads four counts:• New York General Business Law § 349, deceptive acts and practices, for the New York subclass. It seeks statutory damages of $50 per transaction plus treble damages for knowing violations.
• New York General Business Law § 350, false advertising, also for the New York subclass, seeking $500 per transaction.
• Breach of express warranty, for the nationwide class, on the theory that the front-of-bag oil claim was a written affirmation of fact rather than puffery. The count lists the express warranty statute of essentially every state.
• Unjust enrichment, pleaded in the alternative, seeking disgorgement and a constructive trust.
It also asks the court to certify the class, to enjoin the labeling, and to award compensatory, treble and punitive damages plus fees and costs. A jury trial is demanded.
The Illinois complaint pleads two counts and is tighter for it:
• The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, for an Illinois subclass. That statute does not require proof of intent to deceive, only that the seller intended consumers to rely on the representation.
• The consumer protection statutes of the other fourteen jurisdictions in the class, on the pleaded theory that they are materially identical to the Illinois act for this kind of deception.
It seeks compensatory damages, restitution or disgorgement, statutory, treble and punitive damages where each state's law allows them, interest, fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief, with a jury demanded.
The Louisiana complaint pleads five counts: breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Louisiana law; Louisiana’s unfair trade practices law; unjust enrichment, in the alternative; and fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks the price premium, treble damages under the state statute, punitive damages where permitted, and an injunction requiring Utz to stop the avocado oil claim unless the chips meet the Codex standard for avocado oil, disclose the oils it actually uses, adopt third-party testing and run corrective advertising.
One drafting point in that complaint is likely to draw a response. It cites the Louisiana unfair trade practices law as “La. R.S. 9:3501 et seq.” and pleads it for the whole class. Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law is codified at La. R.S. 51:1401 et seq., and its private right of action at § 51:1409 is limited to suits in an individual capacity, which is why the same firm’s Chosen Foods complaint pleads that claim individually. The amended complaint filed September 4 was not available to OCA, so whether it changed this is not known.
All of the relief in all eight cases is requested on unproven allegations; nothing has been awarded in any of them.
Two drafting details in the New York complaint are the kind of thing a defendant raises early. Its factual section asserts that Utz violated New York GBL § 392-b, the criminal false-labeling statute, but no § 392-b count is actually pleaded — it appears as background rather than as a cause of action. And the paragraph describing Utz Quality Foods refers to “the honey wheat pretzels product purchased by Plaintiff,” a leftover from a different Utz case that has nothing to do with the chips at issue here. Neither error changes what the case is about, but both suggest a complaint assembled from a template. The Illinois complaint does not carry either error.
Who Would Be Covered by the Proposed Classes?
The New York case pleads a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought either of its two products during the applicable limitations period, with a New York subclass layered underneath. It estimates membership in the thousands and also asks for a separate injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2), on the theory that the labeling is ongoing.The Illinois case pleads a class of purchasers of the Boulder Canyon avocado oil products in fifteen jurisdictions, with an Illinois subclass, and estimates membership in the hundreds of thousands. It excludes resellers, Utz's own officers and directors, and anyone who opts out.
The Louisiana case pleads a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought Boulder Canyon avocado oil-labeled potato chips or snack products from October 16, 2020 through its filing date, plus a Louisiana subclass. It excludes Utz and its affiliates, officers and employees, and anyone with a personal injury claim, and estimates membership in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
The five newer suits add more definitions. The Pennsylvania case pleads a nationwide class of purchasers of the Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips within the limitations period, with a North Carolina subclass. The Sanchez case pleads a nationwide class of people who bought the Classic Sea Salt Kettle chips for personal or household use from July 11, 2022 onward, with California and New York subclasses, and estimates membership in at least the tens of thousands. The Allison case is limited to California residents who bought that product, with a consumer subclass. The Brand case pleads a nationwide class of U.S. residents who bought its four products within the limitations period, with a California subclass, and estimates membership in the hundreds of thousands. According to Utz’s notice of removal, the Bigler complaint pleaded a California subclass and a multi-state class of buyers in states whose express warranty laws are substantially similar to California’s, before the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
No class has been certified in any of the eight cases. Nationwide classes in food-labeling cases are frequently narrowed to the state whose consumer statute is actually pleaded, and the New York express warranty count's fifty-state list is the sort of thing courts often trim rather than certify wholesale. The Illinois approach — naming fifteen jurisdictions and arguing their statutes are materially identical — is the more common way plaintiffs try to hold a multi-state class together, though defendants routinely contest whether those laws really do line up. Any of the cases may also not survive to certification at all.
What Utz Is Likely to Argue
Utz has not set out its defenses in the filings OCA has reviewed — its notice of removal in the Santa Cruz case says only that it considers the claims meritless — so this is not its position, but the defenses in this category are predictable enough to be worth knowing.A motion to dismiss in each pending case is likely, built on some combination of: that a “made with avocado oil” banner does not promise avocado oil is the only oil, particularly where the ingredient panel discloses what is in the bag; that a plaintiff who intends to buy the product again lacks standing to seek an injunction, having learned what they allege is true; and that a class spanning many states cannot proceed on plaintiffs from one or two of them.
The pleading-sufficiency arguments split between the New York and Illinois complaints. Against the New York complaint, Utz can argue the central factual allegation is conclusory because no test results are attached and no substituted oil is identified, and that a study about the category is not a fact about these products. Against the Illinois complaint that line is harder, and the attack shifts to the testing itself: six bags from two Chicago-area stores as a basis for a fifteen-jurisdiction class, a fatty acid profile that does not name which oil was allegedly substituted, and reference ranges taken from Codex and AOCS rather than from any binding labeling standard. The five newer complaints, like New York’s, rest on the study rather than testing of their own. The four September complaints tie it to the specific Classic Sea Salt lots the researchers tested, and the Pennsylvania complaint quotes the study’s figures for those lots; the Brand complaint extends the claim to flavored varieties the study never tested, which gives Utz an obvious opening on those products.
The plaintiff's answer to the ingredient-panel defense is already in the pleading: consumers cannot chemically test a bag of chips at the shelf, and no amount of label-reading reveals a substituted oil if the panel says avocado oil. That is a stronger version of the usual front-label argument, because unlike a disclosed additive, an adulterated oil is not something the back of the package would disclose at all.
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.
• There is no registration or sign-up.
For money to reach any purchaser, one of these cases would have to survive Utz's expected motion to dismiss, win class certification, and then settle or prevail at trial. That takes years and frequently does not happen. No legitimate site can take a Utz avocado oil claim today.
What Happens Next
Utz's response is the next milestone in each of the seven pending cases, and a motion to dismiss is the likely form it takes. Summonses issued to Utz Quality Foods on August 31 and to Utz Brands on September 1, which starts the clock on a responsive pleading. In the Louisiana case, the summons was returned executed on September 18, and the court granted Utz an extension of time to answer on September 22, 2026. The Illinois status hearing is set for October 30, 2026. Maresca is before Judge Keli M. Neary in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and Sanchez is before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson in the Northern District of California. Bigler is no longer pending: its plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice on October 1, 2026, so that case ends without any ruling on the claims, which can be filed again. If any case survives, discovery would reach the questions no complaint can answer on its own: what oil Utz actually buys for these lines, what its own specifications and supplier certificates say, and whether its testing ever flagged what the UC Davis researchers describe.Seven pending suits in five federal districts also raise a procedural question. Overlapping class actions against one defendant are usually resolved by consolidating them before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation or by staying some in favor of another, and the party positions on that often say as much about the litigation as the merits briefing does. Three of the seven pending cases are in the Northern District of California, where related cases can be reassigned to a single judge.
The wider thing to watch is whether more filings follow. When this page first published on August 23, a second suit was the thing to watch for. It arrived eight days later, an earlier Louisiana filing then came to light, three more federal suits followed in September and another in October, and Utz’s removal of a California state-court case revealed a filing from August 3 that predates them all, a case its plaintiff has since dismissed without prejudice. A published study reporting adulteration across most of a category is an unusually efficient roadmap for plaintiffs' firms, and the brands it covers extend well beyond Utz. Utz itself has been in the news recently for an unrelated reason — an FDA Class I recall of certain Zapp's and Dirty Chips products — which is a separate matter and not part of any of these cases.
OpenClassActions.com will watch the seven pending dockets and update this page on a ruling, a consolidation order, a certification decision, or a settlement with a claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Utz avocado oil settlement or claim form?
No. These are proposed class action complaints, not settlements. There is no settlement fund, no claim form, no payout and no deadline to act. Utz has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time.
How many lawsuits are there?
Eight proposed class actions have been filed. One, Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on October 1, 2026, leaving seven pending, and none has been resolved on the merits. Bigler was filed in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on August 3, 2026 and removed to the Northern District of California on September 10; a dismissal without prejudice is not a ruling on the claims, which can be filed again. Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana on August 19, 2026 over Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips and snacks. Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC was filed in the Eastern District of New York on August 20, 2026 over two products. Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc. was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on August 31, 2026, names thirteen Boulder Canyon products, and attaches laboratory testing the plaintiffs commissioned. Maresca v. Utz Brands, Inc. was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2026, and Sanchez v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC and Allison v. Utz Brands, Inc. were filed in the Northern District of California on September 16 and September 25, 2026, and Brand v. Utz Brands, Inc. followed in the same court on October 14, 2026. Utz has not been found liable in any of them.
What is the Louisiana Utz lawsuit about?
Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01829 (E.D. La.), was filed August 19, 2026 by a New Orleans shopper who says he bought Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips at Costco for $18.69 a unit. It alleges the chips contain oils other than the avocado oil named on the bag, citing the July 2026 UC Davis study, and targets Boulder Canyon's January 2026 “Be for Real” campaign and its “Real Ingredients. Real Flavor. Real Standards.” tagline. It pleads warranty, Louisiana unfair trade practices, unjust enrichment and misrepresentation claims. Utz was granted more time to answer on September 22, 2026.
What are the California and Pennsylvania Utz lawsuits about?
All five rely on the July 2026 UC Davis study and center on Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips, which the complaints say tested two lots of that product and found both inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Maresca (M.D. Pa.) pleads Pennsylvania and North Carolina consumer protection law and breach of contract for a nationwide class. Sanchez (N.D. Cal.) pleads California and New York consumer claims, warranty, fraud and other claims for a nationwide class with California and New York subclasses. Allison (N.D. Cal.) pleads California claims for California buyers only. Brand (N.D. Cal.), filed October 14, 2026, adds three flavored Boulder Canyon avocado oil varieties the study did not test and pleads California consumer, warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment claims for a nationwide class with a California subclass. Bigler, removed from Santa Cruz County, pleaded California consumer and express warranty claims, according to Utz’s notice of removal; the state-court complaint is not on the public federal docket, and the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on October 1, 2026.
Which products do the lawsuits name?
The New York case names two: Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips, and Good Health Kettle Style 100% Avocado Oil Potato Chips Sea Salt. The Illinois case names thirteen Boulder Canyon avocado oil items across the Kettle, Wavy, Thin & Crispy and Canyon Poppers lines, and says the list is not exhaustive. The Louisiana case covers all Boulder Canyon avocado oil-labeled chips and snack products, centered on the Classic Sea Salt Kettle chips. The five newer suits center on the Classic Sea Salt Kettle chips; Brand adds the Wavy Cheddar & Sour Cream, Hickory BBQ and Cheddar & Sour Cream varieties, Sanchez is limited to that one product, and Maresca says Utz sells at least ten avocado oil chip products. All are sold by Utz Quality Foods, LLC and its parent Utz Brands, Inc.
What did the lab testing in the Illinois case find?
According to that complaint, six unopened bags of Boulder Canyon avocado oil chips were sent to an AOCS-certified laboratory, and all six fell outside the published avocado oil ranges on three fatty acid markers: palmitoleic acid far below range, stearic acid roughly double the top of the range, and palmitic acid below it. The complaint does not say which oil it contends was used instead; it alleges only that avocado oil cannot be the only oil present. These are allegations, and no court has evaluated them.
What do the complaints say the chips actually contain?
That they are made with a blend of oils rather than avocado oil alone, and that testing showed chemical profiles consistent with dilution or substitution by other oils. None of the seven complaints on the public dockets identifies which specific oil it says was used instead. These are unproven allegations, and Utz has not been found liable in any of the cases.
What is the UC Davis study the lawsuits rely on?
A 2026 study in Applied Food Research, led by UC Davis food science professor Selina Wang, tested 54 samples, two production lots each of 27 processed foods labeled as made with avocado oil, and reported that 48 showed markers inconsistent with pure avocado oil — including 93 percent of the chips tested. It used fatty acid and sterol profiles as chemical fingerprints. The study is about the category; the complaints are what apply it to specific Utz products, and the Illinois case adds testing of its own.
Are the chips unsafe or being recalled?
No. These are economic cases about labeling and price, not safety cases. No plaintiff claims the chips caused illness, and the oils the complaints say may have been substituted are ordinary edible oils. Utz did have an unrelated FDA Class I recall covering certain Zapp's and Dirty Chips products; that is a separate matter and is not part of these lawsuits.
Who would be covered by the proposed classes?
The New York case pleads a nationwide class for its two products plus a New York subclass. The Illinois case pleads a class of Boulder Canyon purchasers in fifteen jurisdictions — Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, Washington State and Washington, D.C. — with an Illinois subclass. The Louisiana case pleads a nationwide class of Boulder Canyon avocado oil purchasers from October 16, 2020 through its filing, with a Louisiana subclass. The Pennsylvania case pleads a nationwide class with a North Carolina subclass; Sanchez pleads a nationwide class from July 11, 2022 with California and New York subclasses; Allison covers California buyers only; Brand pleads a nationwide class with a California subclass; and Bigler, according to Utz’s notice of removal, pleaded a California subclass and a multi-state express warranty class before it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. No class has been certified in any of them.
Is there anything to file for Utz avocado oil chips?
No. There is no claim form or registration in any of the eight cases. If one ever produces a settlement, a court-approved administrator would announce it and any claim process publicly. No legitimate site can take a Utz avocado oil claim today.
Sources
• Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, et al. — Class Action Complaint, No. 2:26-cv-05126 (E.D.N.Y., filed August 20, 2026).• Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc., et al. — Class Action Complaint and docket, No. 1:26-cv-10514 (N.D. Ill., filed August 31, 2026).
• Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. — Class Action Complaint for Damages (ECF No. 1) and docket entries through the September 22, 2026 order on Utz’s motion for extension of time, No. 2:26-cv-01829-DJP-EJD (E.D. La., filed August 19, 2026), via the CourtListener docket
• Utz Quality Foods, LLC’s Notice of Removal, Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-10224 (N.D. Cal., removed September 10, 2026, from Santa Cruz County Superior Court No. 26CV02507), and the CourtListener docket. The state-court complaint is not on the public federal docket.
• Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (ECF No. 19), Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-10224 (N.D. Cal., filed October 1, 2026)
• Class Action Complaint, Brand v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-11845 (N.D. Cal., filed October 14, 2026), and the docket via CourtListener
• Class Action Complaint, Maresca v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02644 (M.D. Pa., filed September 15, 2026), and the CourtListener docket
• Class Action Complaint, Sanchez v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-10578 (N.D. Cal., filed September 16, 2026), and the CourtListener docket
• Class Action Complaint, Allison v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10942 (N.D. Cal., filed September 25, 2026), and the CourtListener docket
• UC Davis — Most Avocado Oil Chips and Dressings Are Adulterated, Study Finds
• Applied Food Research — avocado oil authenticity study (ScienceDirect)
• NPR — Is that food really made with 100% avocado oil? Likely not
• Food Safety Magazine — UC Davis researchers find widespread authenticity issues with avocado oil
Illinois Class Action Complaint (PDF)
The Illinois complaint as filed on August 31, 2026 — 29 pages, including the label photographs and the fatty acid figures described above. An amended complaint was filed the same day, which the docket describes as correcting a plaintiff's name; this is the original.Louisiana Class Action Complaint (PDF)
The original Louisiana complaint in Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc., filed August 19, 2026 (30 pages). A first amended complaint was filed September 4, 2026; this is the original.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Allegations Only
Case Title
Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, et al.
Case Number
2:26-cv-05126
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Date Filed
August 20, 2026
Defendants
Utz Quality Foods, LLC (f/k/a Utz Quality Foods, Inc.); Utz Brands, Inc.
Products
Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips; Good Health Kettle Style 100% Avocado Oil Potato Chips Sea Salt
Claims
New York GBL § 349; New York GBL § 350; breach of express warranty; unjust enrichment
Class Pleaded
Nationwide purchasers, plus a New York subclass and a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class
Plaintiff Counsel
Sultzer & Lipari PLLC; Leeds Brown Law PC; Bryson Harris Suciu DeMay PLLC
Key Evidence Cited
2026 UC Davis study in Applied Food Research on avocado oil authenticity
Related Case
Bigler v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 5:26-cv-10224 (N.D. Cal.) — filed August 3, 2026 in Santa Cruz County Superior Court; removed September 10, 2026; voluntarily dismissed without prejudice October 1, 2026
Related Case
Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01829 (E.D. La.) — filed August 19, 2026
Related Case
Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10514 (N.D. Ill.) — filed August 31, 2026
Related Case
Maresca v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02644 (M.D. Pa.) — filed September 15, 2026 · Judge Keli M. Neary
Related Case
Sanchez v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC, No. 3:26-cv-10578 (N.D. Cal.) — filed September 16, 2026 · Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson
Related Case
Allison v. Utz Brands, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10942 (N.D. Cal.) — filed September 25, 2026
