Class Action Worth Hundreds of Millions Approved Against Golda Ice Cream | First Publication

The Central-Lod District Court approved a class action lawsuit against the Golda ice cream chain, alleging it marketed 'sugar-free' ice creams that actually contained 13.2 times the permitted sugar threshold. The aggregate damage is estimated at approximately 350 million shekels. The class includes anyone who purchased ice cream labeled 'sugar-free' in the last seven years. The court rejected the chain's claim that consumers understand it means 'no added sugar'.

The Central-Lod District Court today (Sunday) approved a class action lawsuit against Anita Ice Cream Ltd., which operates the Golda ice cream parlor chain through franchisees. The lawsuit, filed by a customer, claims the chain marketed ice creams under the 'sugar-free' label when they actually contained sugar. According to laboratory tests attached to the request, hazelnut and coffee flavored ice creams contained about 6.6 grams of lactose per 100 grams, 13.2 times the threshold set in regulations, which allows labeling a product 'sugar-free' only if it contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams. The court rejected the chain's claim that the reasonable consumer understands that 'sugar-free' in dairy ice cream means 'no added sugar', and ruled that the applicant's interpretation, that the label may be misleading, is a reasonable interpretation. It further ruled that the chain 'did not present a satisfactory explanation' for choosing this absolute label when alternatives such as 'no added sugar' were available. The court also decided that it cannot be ruled out that a consumer from the general public, unfamiliar with dairy product composition, was actually misled. The lawsuit was approved on grounds of consumer deception under the Consumer Protection Law, breach of statutory duty, including violation of Israeli Standard 327, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The court also approved the requested remedies: an order prohibiting the chain from presenting products as 'sugar-free', full refund, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage estimated at 300 shekels per class member. The aggregate damage was estimated by the plaintiff at approximately 350 million shekels. The approved class includes customers who purchased the 'sugar-free' ice cream products in the last seven years, including those who bought at the parlors themselves and those who bought online. Shortly before the filing, the chain removed the ice creams from its product line, allegedly temporarily and out of caution. The court ordered the chain to pay attorneys' fees to the applicant's counsel in the amount of 40,000 NIS plus VAT. The attorneys representing the applicant emphasized that the decision is significant beyond a specific product or chain, reminding businesses that words in advertising and at the point of sale are not marketing decoration. They noted that consumers seeking to avoid sugar, including diabetics and those on special diets, are entitled to rely on the sign in front of them, and that they intend to bring full restitution to class members.