Smashing the Peanut Butter Pumpkin Suit

While browsing the Halloween candy aisle at my local grocery store, I noticed an addition to the packaging for Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins. Next to the image of the unwrapped Peanut Butter Pumpkin carved like a jack-o-lantern, there is now a disclaimer saying: “carving not on actual product.” I can’t tell you how many Peanut Butter Pumpkins I’ve eaten (dozens? hundreds?), but not one has been carved like the jack-o-lantern on the packaging. I smelled a lawsuit. And I was right.

The suit was ultimately dismissed, but the packaging still changed.

In 2024, Nathan Vidal and Eduardo Granados (and others who later dismissed their claims) filed a class action claiming that they felt duped because they bought Peanut Butter Pumpkins after seeing the jack-o’-lantern carving on the packaging and were disappointed when they opened the package to find that the Peanut Butter Pumpkins were not carved like jack-o’-lanterns. The complaint was initially dismissed in 2025 for lack of a concrete injury. The plaintiffs, however, filed an amended complaint. Just last month, the court again dismissed the complaint, again holding that the plaintiffs had not established a concrete injury.

The plaintiffs tried to show economic injury through two theories: (1) benefit of the bargain and (2) price premium. The court rejected both.

The benefit-of-the-bargain theory requires plaintiffs to show that they paid for a product but received something of lesser value. The plaintiffs attempted to satisfy this test by alleging that they purchased the Peanut Butter Pumpkins “for the novelty/party-display value of the depicted faces.” The court rejected this argument, finding that the plaintiffs’ only purported injury “is their subjective disappointment.”

In reaching this conclusion, the court cited numerous cases holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish an economic injury under the benefit-of-the-bargain theory because they had not alleged that the sale of the products was illegal or that the products were defective, did not work as advertised, or were completely worthless. Even taking the plaintiffs’ novelty expectations as true, they failed to establish an economic injury because they did not alleged that the Peanut Butter Pumpkins were defective or worthless or otherwise lost all economic value.

The price-premium theory requires plaintiffs to show that because of the allegedly false advertising, they paid more for the product than they otherwise would have. To support this theory, the plaintiffs’ amended complaint included allegations about price differences between the Peanut Butter Pumpkins and regular Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups at specific retailers. The court rejected this argument too. As the Court explained, the plaintiffs’ allegations supported only the conclusion that there is a price differential between Peanut Butter Pumpkins and regular Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, but does nothing to prove the actual relevant differential: that of carved versus uncarved versions of the Peanut Butter Pumpkins. As a result, plaintiffs’ allegations hadn’t shown that anyone paid a price premium for carved Peanut Butter Pumpkins.

Take Away: In false advertising cases, plaintiffs can often have difficulty showing that they suffered actual economic harm and that can serve as grounds for dismissing some cases. And Peanut Butter Pumpkins taste good even if they aren’t carved like jack-o’-lanterns.