For false advertising claims, New York courts apply “an objective definition of ‘misleading,' under which the alleged act must be ‘likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.'” Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289, 300 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “[A] plaintiff must do more than plausibly allege that a label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers.” Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 23-CV1399, 2024 WL 1158476, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024) (citation omitted). “Instead, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted customers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “While the question of whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by a ‘natural' label is not typically resolved at the motion to dismiss stage, dismissal is appropriate when the complaint fails to allege facts that state a plausible claim for relief.” Axon v. Citrus World, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 3d 170, 183 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd sub nom. Axon, 813 F. App'x 701.

In Karabas v. TC Heartland LLC, 2025 WL 777001, No. 24-CV-2722 (AMD) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025), Heartland's “100% Natural” label for its sugar alternative “Splenda Naturals Stevia Zero Calorie Sweetener” product which consists of two ingredients—stevia leaf extract and erythritol—was misleading because, as alleged in the complaint, “the processes used to produce these ingredients do not occur naturally in nature; rather, they are synthetic processes undertaken in industrial factories.” 

Karabas, however, conceded that stevia leaf extract and erythritol are natural, and did not allege that any of the chemicals used in production ended up in the product itself. Rather, the allegation was that the industrial process of manufacture transformed the end product into a synthetic product.  

The Court dismissed the case because a “generalized” discussion about the manufacturing process is not sufficient to show that the product is synthetic. See Hawkins v. Coca-Cola Co., 654 F. Supp. 3d 290, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (“Plaintiff plainly makes bare, unsubstantiated allegations about the possibility that the Product contains artificial DL-Malic acid, without any additional factual support from product testing.”); Myers v. Wakefern Food Corp., No. 20-CV-8470, 2022 WL 603000, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2022) (plaintiff claiming that product was tested but “fail[ed] to provide any details whatsoever about [what] this laboratory test entailed” such as “describ[ing] the testing methodology followed, the specific date, time, or place of the testing, who conducted the testing, the qualifications of the testers, etc.”). Moreover, while the plaintiff refers to the Splenda product as “synthetic,” he does not allege that the chemicals used in production were added to the product. Axon, 354 F. Supp. 3d at 183 (collecting cases in which courts have denied motions to dismiss “natural claims” because “the defendant is accused of introducing unnatural ingredients into a product labeled ‘natural'” (emphasis in original)); see also Axon, 813 F. App'x at 705 (“Unlike ‘natural,' the words ‘pure' and ‘100% natural' indicate the absolute absence of contaminants.”) 

     No reasonable consumer would conclude that a product contains artificial ingredients merely because it is produced “in industrial factories” using “synthetic processes.” Indeed, that is the way most consumer goods are produced. See, e.g., Kelly v. Cape Cod Potato Chip Co., 81 F. Supp. 3d 754, 760 (W.D. Mo. 2015) (rejecting the definition of “natural” as a product “existing [in] or produced by nature” “because the Chips are processed foods, which of course do not exist or occur in nature”); Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973, 978 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (observing in dismissing a challenge to “All Natural” pasta that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni Pastas are not springing fully-formed from Ravioli trees and Tortellini bushes”).

     “A reasonable consumer would not think that a compound found in nature is artificial even if it is produced in a different way than nature produces it, if the way it is produced is that it is derived from a natural product and does not contain anything synthetic.” Valencia, 2024 WL 1158476, at *6; see also id. (dismissing GBL claims and observing that “Plaintiff alleges that the fermenting process produces a broth containing citric acid and that the broth must be recovered through chemical reactions with synthetic agents, but does not allege that the resulting citric acid contains synthetic agents.” (internal citation omitted)); Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, 377 F. Supp. 3d 241, 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (dismissing GBL claims challenging “natural” labeling of pet food because the plaintiff does not allege that “the Products are composed of unnatural ingredients” and “a reasonable consumer would not be so absolutist as to require that ‘natural' means there is no glyphosate, even an accidental and innocuous amount, in the Products”); Axon, 354 F. Supp. 3d at 183 (“It is far more misleading to call a product ‘natural' when the defendant has introduced unnatural ingredients than it is to call a product ‘natural' when it contains trace amounts of a commonly used pesticide introduced early in the production process.”); In re General Mills Glyphosate Litig., 16-CV-2869, 2017 WL 2983877, at *6 (D. Minn. July 12, 2017) (stating that “[i]t is implausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that a product labelled as having one ingredient — oats — that is ‘100% Natural' could not contain a trace amount of glyphosate that is far below the amount permitted for organic products” and that “[i]t would be nearly impossible to produce a processed food with no trace of any synthetic molecule”).

The Court also noted that the package also included a description of the process by which the stevia was extracted—that the stevia leaves are steeped in water, the “sweet parts of the leaf” are extracted, the extract is separated, filtered, and purified, and the erythritol is fermented. This additional language was sufficient to clear up any ambiguities about the product. See Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 2018) (“an allegedly misleading statement must be viewed in light of its context on the product label or advertisement as a whole” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Adeghe v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-CV-10025, 2024 WL 22061, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2024) (“when a statement is ambiguous, every reasonable shopper knows that the devil is in the details and would seek clarification elsewhere on the package” (citation omitted)).