A class action lawsuit worth NIS 350 million against the Golda ice cream chain was approved on Sunday, alleging that several sugar-free options offered by the vendor actually contained sugar, the Central District Court ruled.
According to the ruling, laboratory tests showed that the offerings actually contained 6.6 grams of sugar per 100 grams of ice cream, which is over thirteen times the amount allowed for a product to be labeled "sugar-free."
The application for the lawsuit was originally filed in February 2024, after the applicant, Sol Yarkoni, purchased what she thought was sugar-free ice cream from a Golda location on Ramat Gan's Jabotinsky Street.
Yarkoni, who was on a low-carb diet at the time, claims she later felt as if she had eaten sugar, prompting her to bring a sample of the ice cream to a Health Ministry-authorized laboratory.
Golda argued that the labels were not misleading to customers on the basis that a reasonable person would know that dairy products naturally contain lactose, or natural milk sugar. The company claimed that dairy products labeled "sugar-free" are clearly meant to imply that no sugar was added to them, rather than the natural sugar being removed.
The company cited the opinion of Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor Elliot Berry, who noted that the Israeli Diabetes Association has approved ice cream products with similar amounts of sugar, and the consuming such ice cream is not deemed a health risk in this context.
Yarkoni rejected Golda's argument, relying on the Prinir precedent, which, according to the court's decision, recognizes cases of “total failure of consideration” where product characteristics differ materially from the expectations of the consumer.
Court: 'Sugar-free' label carries more value than Golda claims
The court's decision stated that there was reason for Yarkoni and others to assume that ice cream labeled "sugar-free" was in fact sugar-free, noting the fact that most of Golda's products are clearly not sugar-free, giving further value to the label.
The court concluded that sufficient grounds existed to allege financial damage, with the amount to be determined at a later date following further proceedings.