A proposed class action filed in federal court on Long Island accuses Utz of selling Boulder Canyon and Good Health kettle chips on an avocado oil promise while frying them in a blend of cheaper oils, leaning on a UC Davis study that found most avocado oil chips it tested were adulterated. It is a complaint, not a settlement — there is no fund, no claim form and nothing to file.
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?
A proposed class action accuses Utz Quality Foods, LLC and its parent Utz Brands, Inc. of selling two kettle chip products on an avocado oil claim when, according to the complaint, the chips are made with a blend of oils rather than avocado oil alone. The case, 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, represented by Sultzer & Lipari PLLC, Leeds Brown Law PC and Bryson Harris Suciu DeMay PLLC.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.
Which Products Are Named
The 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” |
Both brands sit under Utz Brands, the Hanover, Pennsylvania snack company whose portfolio also includes Zapp's and Dirty Chips. The proposed class, however, is written more broadly than a single-state case — it reaches purchasers nationwide, with a New York subclass layered underneath.
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.
It is worth being precise about what the study does and does not do for this case. It is category-level evidence: it establishes that adulteration is widespread in avocado oil chips generally. The complaint is what applies it to these two Utz products, alleging that researchers extracted oil from them specifically and found profiles consistent with dilution or substitution. The complaint does not attach lab reports, does not say which other oils it contends were found, and does not name the samples. Those gaps are exactly where a motion to dismiss will aim, and whether the pleading clears the bar is a live question rather than a foregone conclusion.
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 Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The 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. All of that is relief requested on unproven allegations; nothing has been awarded.
Two drafting details are worth flagging, because they are the kind of thing a defendant raises early. The complaint's 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.
Who Would Be Covered by the Proposed Classes?
As pleaded, the nationwide class is everyone in the United States who bought either product during the applicable limitations period, with a New York subclass for purchasers in the state. The complaint 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.No class has been certified. Nationwide classes in food-labeling cases are frequently narrowed to the state whose consumer statute is actually pleaded — here, New York — and the express warranty count's fifty-state list is the sort of thing courts often trim rather than certify wholesale. The 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 built on some combination of: that the complaint never says which oils testing supposedly found, or attaches any test results, so the central factual allegation is conclusory; that the complaint borrows a published study about the category and assumes it covers these products without pleading facts connecting the two; 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 the plaintiff who intends to buy the product again lacks standing to seek an injunction, since he now knows what he alleges is true; and that a nationwide express warranty count spanning fifty statutes cannot proceed on one New York plaintiff.
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, the case 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, and a motion to dismiss is the likely form it takes. If the case survives, discovery would reach the questions the complaint cannot 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.The wider thing to watch is whether more filings follow. 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 this case.
OpenClassActions.com will watch the docket and update this page on a ruling, a certification decision, or a settlement with a claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Utz avocado oil settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed class action complaint, not a settlement. 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.
Which products does the lawsuit name?
Two: Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style Potato Chips, and Good Health Kettle Style 100% Avocado Oil Potato Chips Sea Salt. Both are sold by Utz Quality Foods, LLC and its parent Utz Brands, Inc. No other Utz, Boulder Canyon or Good Health item is named.
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 lab testing showed chemical profiles consistent with dilution or substitution by other oils. The complaint does not identify which specific oils it says were found, and does not attach test results. These are unproven allegations, and Utz has not yet responded.
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. This is an economic case about labeling and price, not a safety case. 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?
A nationwide class of everyone who bought the two products during the limitations period, plus a New York subclass. No class has been certified, and courts often narrow nationwide classes in food-labeling cases to the state whose law is pleaded.
What should I do if I bought these chips?
Nothing is required and there is nothing to file. If the 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).• 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
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.
