S.D.N.Y. · No. 7:26-cv-08824
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Simply Good Foods Companysource ↗ filed by KamberLaw, LLC · No. 7:26-cv-08824 · 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$688M ▾No directly on-point false-advertising food/supplement rulings exist in the sample; Cetorelli shows consumer-protection deceptive-practices claims can survive through trial and appeal, while Guthrie shows UCL class claims can fail class cert on individualized-reliance grounds and Donboli shows labeling claims can collapse on probable-cause/merits review. Comparable settlements $200M–$688M median $225M · n=10 Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Toyota Industries $436M · Toyota Industries $299.50M Per member (realized): ~$2,500 median · $2,500–$2,500 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders (Ohio) — consumer-protection deceptive-practices claim and treble damages affirmed, showing viability of similar statutory false-advertising theories. Main risk: Class certification denial due to individualized reliance/purchase issues, as in Guthrie v. Transamerica (UCL claim denied class treatment). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$60M No directly on-point false-advertising comparables; benchmark per-member figure likely mismatched to food/consumer-goods context; estimates are rough order-of-magnitude only. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-10-06 | $200M–$688M comparable settlements |