FREE CASE REVIEW  ·  (504) 372-6777  ·  NO FEE UNLESS WE RECOVER FOR YOU
Call now(504) 372-6777 Free Case Review
Two class actions filed · E.D. Louisiana

You paid for avocado oil.
Testing says otherwise.

UC Davis researchers tested 54 products labeled “avocado oil” — chips, cooking oil, mayonnaise, dressings. Forty-eight came back inconsistent with the real thing. Two class actions are now filed in New Orleans federal court, and we are reviewing claims involving other brands.

  • No fee unless we recover for you
  • You don't need the receipt. Or the bag.
  • Nationwide class, all 50 states

What you bought

Price paid$18.69
Premium over regular chips500%+
Lots tested2
Lots that passed0
Ingredients, per the label Potatoes, avocado oil,* sea salt.
*This is the part the lawsuit is about.

Free Case Review

Two minutes · No obligation

Which brand or brands? Check all that apply.

Daly & Black does not share or sell SMS opt-in or phone numbers for SMS purposes. We will only use your information to contact you about firm or case updates. See our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Don't send confidential or time-sensitive information here.

The test results

Twenty-six out of twenty-eight.

In July 2026, researchers at UC Davis published a peer-reviewed study in Applied Food Research. They took processed foods that listed one oil on the label and checked whether the oil inside actually matched.

FAILED
Summary of results alleged in the complaintUC Davis · Jul 2026
Avocado oil-labeled products showing patterns inconsistent with authentic avocado oil 89%of 54
Avocado oil chip samples that failed authenticity testing 26 / 2893%
Boulder Canyon production lots tested, independently sourced 2 / 2both failed
Chosen Foods lots tested — four products, two lots each 8 / 8all failed
Salad dressing samples that failed authenticity testing 100%all failed
Olive oil-labeled products in the same study 95%passed

Source: allegations in the complaints, citing the July 2026 UC Davis study. Olive oil is shown for contrast — same lab, same method, very different result.

Before you ask: they checked whether frying could explain it. The complaint alleges typical frying conditions moved the key authenticity markers by less than one percent.

What the named plaintiffs paid

$18.69

01 · UtzFor a bag of Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil Classic Sea Salt Kettle Style chips at a New Orleans Costco. The complaint calls that a premium of 500 percent or more over conventional chips.

$14.79

02 · Chosen FoodsPer unit for Chosen Foods 100% Pure Avocado Oil Spray. The complaint alleges she bought two, and bought Classic Mayo — one of the four products that failed — on multiple occasions.

The products

Two brands. Two filed cases.

The UC Davis study didn't only test chips. It covered bottled cooking oil, mayonnaise and salad dressings too — 54 products in all, of which 48 came back inconsistent with authentic avocado oil.

The two brands our firm has filed on
Boulder Canyon — Utz Brands
Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Failed both independently sourced production lots tested.
Lawsuit filed
Chosen Foods
Hebert v. Chosen Foods LLC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. Four products tested — Classic Mayo, Vegan Mayo, Lemon Garlic Dressing & Marinade, Zesty Italian Dressing & Marinade. The amended complaint alleges all four failed in both lots tested.
Lawsuit filed

Utz Brands and Chosen Foods are the only two companies our firm has filed against. The UC Davis study covered 54 products in all. Product-level identifications for Chosen Foods come from the study itself as described in the amended complaint; other brand identifications come from published reporting on that study, including the Daily Caller (Aug 11, 2026), which attributed its findings to Edible Aria.

Tell Us What You Bought

Do you qualify?

Three things, and you probably already know all of them.

01

You bought an avocado oil product

Chips, bottled cooking oil, mayonnaise or dressing sold on an avocado oil claim — any brand.

02

On or after October 16, 2020

That's where the proposed class period starts. If you still buy them, you're in it.

03

You paid extra for the avocado oil

That was the whole selling point. It's also the whole case.

No receipts, no packaging, no problem. If you're not sure, send it in anyway and we'll tell you where you stand for free.

Start My Free Review

01

Case one · Boulder Canyon chips

Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc.

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Blake Corley · Daly & Black, P.C.

What the Utz complaint says.

Brought by Arthur Hunter, a New Orleans consumer, over Boulder Canyon Avocado Oil kettle chips.

The timing is part of the story. The complaint alleges Utz launched the Boulder Canyon “better-for-you” avocado oil campaign in October 2020 — months after an earlier UC Davis study found 82 percent of commercial avocado oil sold in the U.S. was rancid or adulterated.

Then in January 2026, the complaint alleges, Utz ran a national campaign under the tagline “Real Ingredients. Real Flavor. Real Standards.”

“Consumers who paid a premium price for avocado oil deserve to get avocado oil. The testing here isn't ambiguous. It's a pattern across independent production lots, under criteria designed to give the product the benefit of the doubt.” Blake Corley · Daly & Black, P.C.

Seven causes of action

  1. Breach of express warranty
  2. Redhibition under the Louisiana Civil Code
  3. Violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act
  4. Fraudulent misrepresentation
  5. Fraud in the inducement
  6. Negligent misrepresentation
  7. Unjust enrichment

The suit seeks class certification, damages including treble damages under Louisiana law, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and an injunction requiring Utz to stop the challenged labeling, disclose what's actually in the oil, run third-party testing, and correct the advertising.

02

Case two · Chosen Foods mayo, dressings & spray

Hebert v. Chosen Foods LLC

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Blake Corley · Daly & Black, P.C.

What the Chosen Foods complaint says.

Brought by Karoline Hebert, a New Orleans consumer, who bought Chosen Foods 100% Pure Avocado Oil Spray and Chosen Foods Classic Mayo in New Orleans.

This one is about a promise, not just a label. The complaint alleges Chosen Foods built its brand on purity — marketing itself as “America's #1 Avocado Oil,” describing itself as one of the few brands that can guarantee its products are 100% pure, and telling consumers it tests every batch of its oil and can trace it from the grove to the bottle.

In January 2026, the complaint alleges, the company ran a national campaign built around keeping seed oils out of your food. Six months later, UC Davis tested four of its products.

8 / 8
Chosen Foods products in the July 2026 studyTwo lots each
Chosen Foods Classic Mayo2 / 2both failed
Chosen Foods Vegan Mayo2 / 2both failed
Chosen Foods Lemon Garlic Dressing & Marinade2 / 2both failed
Chosen Foods Zesty Italian Dressing & Marinade2 / 2both failed

Source: allegations in the amended complaint, describing the July 2026 UC Davis study. Every Chosen Foods product tested was classified as inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, in both independently collected production lots.

The company did not dispute that its products were tested or that they failed, the complaint alleges. It said it never adds seed oils of any kind. But in the same statement, according to the complaint, it also said two things that matter: that the same avocado oil goes into its mayo and dressings as into its cooking oils, and that all of its oil has for years been purity-tested, internally and by third parties, before it goes into any product.

The complaint alleges that if one oil supply feeds every product, and all of it is tested, then failing eight lots out of eight leaves only two possibilities — the testing didn't happen as described, or it doesn't catch what an independent lab caught.

That is why the spray is in the case even though the spray itself wasn't tested. The complaint alleges the same “100% Pure Avocado Oil” promise appears on the front of every product in the line, and that the purity guarantee was, by the company's own description, brand-wide.

On August 20, 2026, the complaint alleges, the Texas Attorney General opened an industry-wide investigation into companies marketing products as “made with avocado oil” and issued Chosen Foods a civil investigative demand under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Seven causes of action

  1. Breach of express warranty
  2. Redhibition under the Louisiana Civil Code
  3. Violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act
  4. Fraudulent misrepresentation
  5. Fraud in the inducement
  6. Negligent misrepresentation
  7. Unjust enrichment

The proposed class covers people who bought Chosen Foods avocado oil-labeled products carrying the “100% Pure Avocado Oil” representation — bottled oil, spray, mayonnaise, and dressings and marinades — on or after June 6, 2023, with a Louisiana subclass. The suit seeks class certification, damages, restitution and disgorgement, and injunctive relief.

See If Your Purchase Qualifies

Your lawyers

Who's handling this.

Blake E. Corley, attorney, Daly & Black, P.C.

Blake E. Corley

Attorney · Daly & Black, P.C.

Blake represents the named plaintiffs in Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. and Hebert v. Chosen Foods LLC. He practices out of the firm's New Orleans office on Poydras Street.

Richard G. Perque, attorney, Daly & Black, P.C.

Richard G. Perque

Attorney · Daly & Black, P.C.

Richard is co-counsel on the firm's avocado oil mislabeling cases and also practices out of the New Orleans office.

Daly & Black, P.C. is a national firm representing individuals and families in complex litigation — first party, personal injury, wrongful death, and mass tort. More about the firm at dalyblack.com.

Call (504) 372-6777

Questions

The things everybody asks.

Wait, what's actually wrong with the chips?

Nothing about safety is alleged. The claim is about the label. The complaint alleges the chips were sold as cooked in avocado oil when independent testing found the oil inside was inconsistent with authentic avocado oil — and that people paid a premium for that label.

Am I included?

It depends which case. The Utz complaint proposes a nationwide class plus a Louisiana subclass of people who bought Boulder Canyon avocado oil-labeled chips since October 16, 2020. The Chosen Foods complaint proposes a nationwide class plus a Louisiana subclass of people who bought Chosen Foods avocado oil-labeled products carrying the “100% Pure Avocado Oil” representation — oil, spray, mayo, dressings and marinades — on or after June 6, 2023. If either sounds like you, send in your info and we’ll review it at no cost.

I ate the evidence. Does that matter?

No. Receipts and packaging help, but they are not required to start. Just tell us roughly what you bought and where.

What's this UC Davis study?

A peer-reviewed study published July 2026 in Applied Food Research. Researchers tested processed foods listing a single oil on the label to see whether the labeled oil matched what was actually in there. According to the complaints, 89 percent of avocado oil-labeled products showed patterns inconsistent with authentic avocado oil: 26 of 28 chip samples failed, 71 percent of mayonnaise samples failed, and every salad dressing sample failed.

What are the lawsuits asking for?

Both seek class certification, damages including treble damages under Louisiana law, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief — an order to stop the challenged labeling, disclose the true composition of the oils, run third-party testing, and undertake corrective advertising.

What does this cost me?

Nothing to ask. The review is free and carries no obligation, and there is no fee unless a recovery is made on your behalf. Contingency fee arrangements are subject to the terms of a written fee agreement.

Has anybody won yet?

No. No class has been certified and the court has not ruled on any of the claims. Everything on this page is an allegation from the complaint and has not been proven.

I bought avocado oil, mayo or dressing — not chips. Does that count?

It may. The UC Davis study tested chips, bottled oil, mayonnaise and salad dressings, and 48 of the 54 avocado oil-labeled products it examined came back inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Chosen Foods mayo, dressings, bottled oil and spray are covered by the proposed class in Hebert v. Chosen Foods LLC. For other brands, our attorneys are reviewing claims. Tell us what you bought on the form.

The spray wasn't tested. Why is it in the case?

Because of what the company itself said. The complaint alleges Chosen Foods stated that the same avocado oil goes into all of its products and that all of that oil is purity-tested before use — and that the same “100% Pure Avocado Oil” promise appears on the front of the spray. On those allegations, the complaint puts the spray in the proposed class. Whether the court agrees has not been decided.

My brand isn't in your list. Should I still submit?

Yes. The list on this page reflects brands identified so far in published reporting on the study. It is not a complete list of every product that may be affected, and there is a free-text field on the form for anything not listed.

Tell us what's in your pantry.

The more you can tell us, the faster we can say where you stand. None of it obligates you to anything.

Rather just talk? Call (504) 372-6777.

Attorney
Blake E. Corley
Phone
(504) 372-6777
Email
bcorley@dalyblack.com
Office
400 Poydras St., Suite 1900
New Orleans, LA 70130

Free Case Review

Confidential · No obligation

Which brand or brands?
What kind of product?
Still have packaging or receipts?

Daly & Black does not share or sell SMS opt-in or phone numbers for SMS purposes. We will only use your information to contact you about firm or case updates. See our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Don't send confidential or time-sensitive information here.

Important notice

No class has been certified in either matter, and the court has not ruled on any of the claims described on this page. The statements summarized here are allegations from the complaints and have not been proven. Both companies deny the allegations against them.

This firm has filed two lawsuits: Hunter v. Utz Brands, Inc. and Hebert v. Chosen Foods LLC, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. No other company is a defendant in any case filed by this firm. Where other companies or products are mentioned on this page, they are identified because published reporting on the UC Davis study associated them with the testing, and nothing here should be read as an allegation of wrongdoing against any company other than as set out in the filed complaints.

Submitting information through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not make you a party to the lawsuit. An attorney-client relationship is formed only by a signed written agreement.

There is no fee unless a recovery is made on your behalf. Contingency fee arrangements are subject to the terms of a written fee agreement. Results depend on the specific facts of each matter, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Call Now Free Review