The Central-Lod District Court has approved a request to certify a class-action lawsuit against Anita Ice Cream, which operates the Golda chain, over allegations that it marketed and sold ice cream in its branches under a "sugar-free" label, despite the products actually containing lactose, as well as polyol sugar substitutes that were not properly disclosed to consumers.
The application to certify the class-action lawsuit was submitted by Sol Yarkoni, who purchased ice cream labeled "sugar-free" at the chain's Ramat Gan branch. Yarkoni, who avoids sugar consumption for health and dietary reasons, suspected after eating that the product served to her contained sugar. Following her suspicion, she turned to an accredited laboratory to examine the product's composition.
Laboratory test findings revealed that the tested flavors, including hazelnut and coffee, contained approximately 6.6 grams of sugar (lactose) per 100 grams of product. This amount is several times higher than the maximum threshold established in regulations for defining a product as "sugar-free," which stands at up to 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams. In addition, the tests revealed that the ice cream contained polyol sugar substitutes, which was not clearly and properly disclosed at the time of purchase.
In response, the company rejected the claims, arguing that the reasonable consumer understands that milk-based ice cream naturally contains lactose, and therefore the term "sugar-free" in this context refers only to the absence of added sugar. The chain further noted in its arguments that out of caution and to prevent misunderstandings, it temporarily removed these products from its shelves.
Judge Iris Rabinovich-Baron rejected the chain's position, ruling that the interpretation according to which the "sugar-free" labeling could mislead the consuming public is a reasonable interpretation that establishes cause for a thorough examination within the framework of a class-action lawsuit. As part of the decision, the court approved examining causes of action including consumer deception, negligence, breach of statutory duty, and unjust enrichment, alongside demands for monetary remedies and permanent injunctions.
Golda chain: "We make every effort to act with fairness and full transparency; the amount is absurd and baseless"
The Golda chain stated: "It is important to clarify that, contrary to the impression that may be created by some publications, Golda was not ordered to pay NIS 350 million, nor any amount at all. This is an amount that the applicant herself chose to specify in her request, without any support, and which in Golda's view is absurd and completely baseless. The proceeding is at a preliminary stage only, and the court has not yet ruled on the merits of the claim, and certainly has not awarded any compensation. We are convinced that as the process continues, it will become clear that there is no basis for the claims and amounts alleged in the suit.
"Golda has made and continues to make every effort to act with fairness and full transparency toward its customers, and has never sought to mislead them. It will always continue to act in this manner, while simultaneously defending its position in court."
Attorney Or Yarkoni, from the Yarkoni Segev Eldar law firm representing the applicant: "The issue discussed here is basic at its core, and precisely for that reason it is important: A consumer is not supposed to interpret, complete, or correct on their own an explicit commercial representation that a business chose to present to them. When a business writes 'sugar-free' on a product, it takes responsibility for those words reflecting reality. The attempt to retroactively turn the phrase 'sugar-free' into 'no added sugar' places responsibility on the consumer for the gap between the representation and the product. Consumer law works in the opposite direction: The responsibility for accuracy, clarity, and preventing deception lies with the entity drafting the representation and deriving commercial benefit from it.
"The court's decision is therefore significant far beyond a specific product or a specific chain. It serves as a reminder to businesses that words in advertising and at the point of sale are not decorative marketing. When dealing with an essential feature of a product, particularly one that may directly affect a purchasing decision and what a person chooses to put into their body, the public is entitled to receive clear, accurate, and reliable information."
Attorney Ori Eldar, representing the applicant together with Attorney Or Yarkoni and Attorney Omri Segev: "The decision sends a clear message to the food industry: Anyone who writes 'sugar-free' on a product must stand behind those literal words. Consumers seeking to avoid sugar, including diabetic patients and people on special diets, are entitled to rely on the sign in front of them. We will continue to manage the proceeding with the goal of achieving full restitution for the group members."