In today’s edition of “petty grievances escalated to an absurd level,” a popular ice cream chain has been sued for allegedly misleading customers as to the ingredients of one of its most popular flavors.
In a case currently dividing opinions on the internet, a woman has sued Cold Stone Creamery because, allegedly, its pistachio ice cream contained no actual pistachios.
Really.
As reported in the U.K.’s Guardian, this whole sorry saga began in July 2022, when a Long Island woman ordered a scoop of pistachio ice cream at a local Cold Stone.
To her sorrow, however, upon looking up the ingredients later on, she found that it contained “pistachio flavoring” rather than actual pistachios.
Trending:
The woman then decided this was enough grounds for a lawsuit, which has been escalated to the Eastern District Court of New York in Brooklyn, presided over by federal Judge Gary Brown.
According to Business Insider, the woman and her legal team argued that she “reasonably believed” that the offending dairy treat contained pistachios, and when she found it most likely did not, “heartbreak followed.”
Oh, boy.
In response to this heart-wrenching tragedy, the woman — or, more likely, her lawyer’s clerks — compiled a formidable amount of evidence, including comparisons with ice cream brands that actually contain pistachios, as well as a survey that found 85 percent of consumers believed that a pistachio-flavored product would contain pistachios.
Is this a frivolous lawsuit?
Judge Brown wrote that the case was a “deceptively complex question about the reasonable expectations,” and that, in response to Cold Stone’s argument, “It seems inconceivable that such a consumer should have to search online to find the relevant webpages while waiting in line to order a scoop of ice-cream.”
Granted, this woman might have a legitimate false advertising case.
After all, it would seem logical to assume that a pistachio-flavored product would contain actual pistachios.
However, the ingredient list did cite “natural flavor,” which has been the standard way for major food corporations to disguise their use of cheaper substitutes (though there could be at least a little pistachio in there).
As Healthline explained, the only requirement for “natural flavors” is that they be derived from a plant or animal.
Still, all this legal hullabaloo has revolved around a cup of ice cream costing around $5.
False advertising aside, was this really worth this woman dedicating two years or more of her life, compiling evidence and lawyers and escalating this case to a federal court?
She easily could have gone back to the Cold Stone and asked for a refund, and that would have been the end of it.
This did not need to be taken before a federal judge.
But, in an increasingly entitled society, many genuinely believe that something as petty as a misleading ice cream name deserves legal and financial compensation.
And if the legal system allows them to escalate their petty grievance to a federal court, then, why should they think otherwise?
