Published
August 23, 2026
Updated
September 3, 2026
Shoppers who bought Boulder Canyon or Good Health chips sold on an avocado oil claim may be covered by two proposed class actions alleging Utz fries them in a blend of cheaper oils. The newer complaint, filed in Chicago on August 31, 2026, attaches independent laboratory testing of six bags. 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, have not yet responded to the complaint, 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 either product mislabeled. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Two proposed class actions now accuse Utz Quality Foods, LLC and 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 first, Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC (Case No. 2:26-cv-05126, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), was filed on August 20, 2026 by a Long Island consumer over two products. The second, 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.The theory is economic. Nobody claims the chips are unsafe or made anyone sick — the oils the complaint says 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 complaint says the chips were actually worth. Utz has not yet responded, and the allegations are unproven.
Status
Two Complaints Filed · Latest August 31, 2026
Mayo v. Utz Quality Foods, LLC (E.D.N.Y.) · Klappa-Cales v. Utz Brands, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) · Utz has not responded to either
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
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, express warranty, unjust enrichment
Proposed Classes
Purchasers in fifteen jurisdictions, and a separate nationwide class
Both pleaded under CAFA with more than $5 million at stake · no class certified in either 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 responded to either case, 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.
How the Two 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Evidence at filing. Category-level study versus product-specific testing, as described above.
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.
Two cases against the same defendant over the same labeling in different districts is the pattern that leads to a motion to consolidate before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or to one case being stayed in favor of the other. Neither has been requested yet.
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.
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 processed foods sold as made with avocado oil — chips, mayonnaises and salad dressings bought from California stores and online retailers in 2025 and 2026. They reported that 48 of the 54 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. All of the relief in both cases is requested on unproven allegations; nothing has been awarded in either.
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.
No class has been certified in either case. 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. Either case may also not survive to certification at all.
What Utz Is Likely to Argue
Utz has not filed a response, so this is not its position — but the defenses in this category are predictable enough to be worth knowing.Expect a motion to dismiss in each case, 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 two cases. 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 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.
• You do not need to register, sign up, or contact anyone.
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. If you have receipts or store loyalty records for these products, keeping them is reasonable, but nothing is required. Be cautious of any site claiming you can file a Utz avocado oil claim today.
What Happens Next
Utz's response is the next milestone in both 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. The Illinois status hearing is set for October 30, 2026. If either 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.Two suits in two 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 one in favor of the other, and the party positions on that often say as much about the litigation as the merits briefing does. Nobody has moved for either yet.
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. 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 either case.
OpenClassActions.com will watch both 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 newly filed 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?
Two, both proposed class actions and neither resolved. 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. Utz has not responded to either.
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. 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 does the complaint 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. Neither complaint identifies which specific oil it says was used instead. These are unproven allegations, and Utz has not responded to either case.
What is the UC Davis study the lawsuit relies on?
A 2026 study in Applied Food Research, led by UC Davis food science professor Selina Wang, tested 54 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 complaint is what applies it to these two products.
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 complaint says 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 this lawsuit.
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. No class has been certified in either.
What should I do if I bought these chips?
Nothing is required and there is nothing to file. If either case ever produces a settlement, a court-approved administrator would announce it and any claim process publicly. Keeping receipts or store loyalty records is reasonable but not necessary at this stage.
Sources
• 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).
• 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
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.
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
