Under the reasonable consumer test for false advertising on a product label, courts ask whether members of the public, acting reasonably under the circumstances, are likely to be deceived by an allegedly false representation on the label. Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 289 (9th Cir. 1995); Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 273 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2017). A “reasonable consumer” is expected to exercise common sense and interpret labels in light of common knowledge. See, e.g., Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. CV 10-1028-GW AGRX, 2012 WL 5504011, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (holding dismissal is appropriate when “a claim alleges that a consumer will read a true statement on a package and will then disregard ‘well-known facts of life' and assume things about the products other than what the statement actually says”); see also Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[I]f the language or graphic is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the advertisement cannot be literally false.”). 

While there is no bright-line rule, the tendency to deceive must be significant and more than a mere possibility—“the law does not concern itself with trifles.” Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771, 778 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49, 79 (Cal. App. 2013)).

A label may be “literally false” or “unambiguously deceptive.” See McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1098 (9th Cir. 2023). If the front label has “some ambiguity,” then courts may consider the back label and “other information readily available to the consumer that could easily resolve the alleged ambiguity.” Moore v. Trader Joe's Co., 4 F.4th 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey” ambiguously could mean that all the honey was Manuka honey, that it was all from the Manuka flower, or that it was all from New Zealand); see also  Bell v. Publix Super Markets Inc., 982 F.3d 468, 477 (7th Cir. 2020).

But “only an unambiguous message can be literally false.” Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharms. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 587 (3d Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original); see also In-N-Out Burgers v. Smashburger Ip Holder LLC, No. SACV 17-1474 JVS(DFMx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62743, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019) (“Because the facial implication of such messages are not unambiguous, the Court declines to find literal falsity as a matter of law.”).

In Parashos v. Once Upon A Farm, No. 26-cv-00314-EMC, 2026 WL 2283647 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2026), the plaintiff alleged that the “Fruit & Veggie Blend” baby food (specifically, the "Wild Rumpus Avocado" flavor) was misleading because it contains no vegetables. The packaging listed the ingredients as pineapple, banana, apple, avocado and mint. The FDA classifies avocados as fruit and mint as an herb. There was no dispute that the remaining ingredients were fruits. 

The court also took judicial notice of dictionary definitions. See, e.g., Anton Int'l v. Chunhong Zhang, No. 21-cv-00120-JWH-KKx, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79709, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2021) (granting request for judicial notice). Notwithstanding the technical botanical definition of avocados as a fruit (as reflected by the FDA classification), "the question of whether an avocado is a vegetable is not so clear-cut in common parlance" because "[t]here is variance in the dictionary definitions of avocado" where some dictionaries define it as a fruit and others as a vegetable. Furthermore, one definition of the word “fruit” refers to “the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant especially: one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed.” See (definition 1(b) for "fruit" from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fruit) (accessed July 31, 2026). Avocados, like peppers and zucchini, lack the “sweet pulp” that would place them firmly within the “fruit” category under this usage. And Merriam-Webster defines “vegetable” as “a usually herbaceous plant (such as the cabbage, bean, or potato) grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal.” Accordingly, though botanically a fruit because they have seeds, avaocados also fit within the broad definitions of vegetables, as the edible part of a plant that is eaten as part of a meal. 

The Supreme Court has observed in Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 568 (2012) that the fact “a [dictionary] definition is broad enough to encompass one sense of a word does not establish that the word is ordinarily understood in that sense.”

     There is precedent holding that a plant may be botanically classed as a fruit but considered for certain legal purposes as a vegetable. Construing a tariff statute, the Supreme Court held that while “botanically speaking,” tomatoes are fruits, in “the common language of the people,” they are vegetables. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304, 307 (1893). Because courts must apply the “ordinary meaning” of words, the Court looked to the way tomatoes are typically used and concluded that “like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, [tomatoes are] usually served at dinner…and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.” Id. Similarly, the Court held that while beans and walnuts might be seeds “in the language of botany or natural history,” they are “not in commerce nor in common parlance,” because “as an article of food on our tables…they are used as a vegetable.” Id.; see also Sonn v. Magone, 159 U.S. 417, 421 (1895) (“The word ‘vegetables'…in common parlance applies to articles of food. The predominant use of lentils and beans is for food, and, as so used, they are commonly called ‘vegetables,' although they may be regarded botanically as seeds”).

In addition, a number of other district courts have treated avocados as vegetables in consumer protection cases. See Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. CV 10-04173 AHM AJWX, 2011 WL 1362188, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011) (finding not misleading for “Garden Vegetables” to include avocado powder, dehydrated onion, garlic powder, and bell pepper); Gates v. Upfield US Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00036-SVW-DTB, 2024 WL 3362857, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2024) (“Avocado oil is a type of vegetable oil known for its healthy qualities”). 

Because a “reasonable consumer” is expected to exercise common sense and interpret labels in light of common knowledge, the court held that the label's reference to “veggie” cannot be deemed “literally false” where the product contains avocados "[g]iven that avocados can be and have been considered vegetables in common parlance and have been treated as such for legal purposes" such that "the status of avocados is subject to ambiguity."

Even if it is not “literally false,” a label nevertheless may be “misleading.” But if there is enough inherent ambiguity on the front label that a reasonable consumer would “necessarily require more information,” the back label and other information readily available to the consumer may be considered. Moore, 4 F.4th at 882 (finding “some ambiguity” in the phrase “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey”); see also McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1097 (finding “some ambiguity” in the phrase “Nature Fusion” which could “be interpreted to mean that the product contains a mixture of natural ingredients, …[or] that the product contains a mixture of both natural and synthetic ingredients”). 

Finding an ambiguity as to whether the “Wild Rumpus Avocado 'Fruit & Veggie Blend'” product contained vegetables other than avocados, the court held that "the reasonable consumer is expected to check the back label for complete information." See Moore, 882 4 F.4th at 882 (“[A]s a matter of law, other available information about Trader Joe's Manuka Honey would quickly dissuade a reasonable consumer from the belief that Trader Joe's Manuka Honey was derived from 100% Manuka flower nectar”); see also McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1099 (“The ingredients list, which McGinity alleges includes many ingredients that are synthetic and that a reasonable consumer would not think are natural, clarifies that the rest of the ingredients are artificial and that the products thus contain both natural and synthetic ingredients”).

Consulting the back label would confirm that the “veggie” in question is an avocado, nothing more. 

Moreover, the court further noted the product's “target audience” allegedly were “health-conscious parents” who “would have particular reason to check the back label.”

Having determined as a matter of law that the use of “veggie” was not literally false or so unambiguously deceptive that a reasonable consumer would not be expected to check the back label, the court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, noting "[t]here are no further facts plaintiff could allege that would plausibly show that a reasonable consumer could be deceived by this product."