Yes, Nature’s Bakery has been hit with another class action lawsuit over misleading health and wellness claims on its fig bars. The company now faces at least two major lawsuits—one filed in May 2024 by Andrew Levit and another filed in February 2025 by Martin and Gamboa—both alleging that Nature’s Bakery deceives consumers with marketing language like “Wholesome Baked In” when the products are actually loaded with sugar. A federal judge recently allowed the “wholesome” marketing claims to proceed in court while dismissing a separate claim that the bars shouldn’t be called “healthy,” meaning plaintiffs still have a viable legal path forward.
The core issue is straightforward: Nature’s Bakery fig bars contain 19 grams of total sugar per serving, with 14 grams being added sugars. That added sugar content represents 28 percent of the bar’s total calories and is over five times higher than what the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend for a healthy diet. Plaintiffs argue that marketing language like “Wholesome Baked In” is deceptive when applied to a product with that much added sugar.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Specific Allegations in the Nature’s Bakery Fig Bar Lawsuits?
- The Sugar Content That Sparked the Class Actions
- What Health Risks Are Plaintiffs Alleging?
- How Does the Court’s Ruling on “Wholesome” vs. “Healthy” Affect the Case?
- What Types of Consumers Are Affected by This Class Action?
- How Do Class Action Lawsuits Against Food Companies Work?
- What’s Next in the Nature’s Bakery Fig Bar Litigation?
What Are the Specific Allegations in the Nature’s Bakery Fig Bar Lawsuits?
The Andrew Levit lawsuit, filed in May 2024 (Case No. 24-cv-02987), challenges Nature’s Bakery’s use of the phrase “Wholesome Baked In” and related marketing claims. The more recent Martin and Gamboa lawsuit, filed February 18, 2025, takes similar aim, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. Both lawsuits focus on the disconnect between the product’s marketing as wholesome or health-conscious and its actual nutritional profile.
The lawsuits are essentially arguing that reasonable consumers would interpret “Wholesome Baked In” as a marker that the product is healthy or at least significantly healthier than it actually is. The legal claims hinge on consumer deception. When someone buys a snack marketed as “wholesome,” they’re reasonably expecting it to be made with whole grains, natural ingredients, and reasonable amounts of sugar—not a product where 28 percent of calories come from added sugars. Plaintiffs argue that Nature’s Bakery used this aspirational marketing language to command premium prices and attract health-conscious consumers who would not have purchased the product had they known the true sugar content upfront.
The Sugar Content That Sparked the Class Actions
Nature’s Bakery fig bars contain 19 grams of total sugar per serving, with 14 grams coming from added sugars. To put this in perspective, the American Heart Association recommends that women consume no more than 25 grams of added sugar per day and men no more than 36 grams per day. A single Nature’s Bakery fig bar—which many people consume as a snack—delivers 14 grams of that daily limit, or 39 percent of a woman’s entire recommended daily added sugar intake.
However, if a consumer buys the product thinking it’s a healthy snack marketed as “wholesome,” they might consume multiple bars without realizing how much added sugar they’re eating. The federal court acknowledged that the sugar content is significant, which is why the judge allowed the “wholesome” marketing claims to proceed while dismissing the separate claim about the “healthy” label. The judge essentially found that calling the bars “wholesome” when they contain this much sugar could be considered misleading, but that specifically calling them “healthy” was a more subjective claim that didn’t meet the threshold for proceeding. This distinction matters for the lawsuit’s future trajectory—plaintiffs still have a strong case on the “wholesome” language, even if the “healthy” angle was struck down.
What Health Risks Are Plaintiffs Alleging?
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege that high sugar consumption from products like Nature’s Bakery fig bars increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic disease, and liver disease. These aren’t fringe health claims—they’re well-established in medical literature. The American Heart Association, the CDC, and numerous peer-reviewed studies have documented the link between excessive added sugar consumption and these chronic conditions.
By marketing a high-sugar product as “wholesome,” plaintiffs argue, Nature’s Bakery is potentially steering consumers toward unhealthy eating patterns that increase their disease risk. The legal framework recognizes that misleading health marketing can cause real-world harm. If someone buys a product thinking it’s a healthy snack and eats it regularly, they’re accumulating sugar intake that could contribute to metabolic problems down the line. Plaintiffs don’t need to prove they personally suffered a disease; they need to show that the deceptive marketing caused them economic harm (by paying more for a product they wouldn’t have bought otherwise) and that the company made false claims about the product’s properties.
How Does the Court’s Ruling on “Wholesome” vs. “Healthy” Affect the Case?
The federal judge’s decision to allow the “wholesome” claims to proceed while dismissing the “healthy” claims is actually a win for plaintiffs, though partial. The reasoning is important: “wholesome” is more objective and tied to specific product characteristics like ingredients and processing, whereas “healthy” is subjective and can mean different things to different consumers. A bar with 14 grams of added sugar simply cannot be considered wholesome under any reasonable interpretation, but a judge might hesitate to declare it objectively not healthy if the product could fit into some specialized diets.
By keeping the “wholesome” claims alive, plaintiffs maintain a strong legal pathway toward settlement or judgment. However, the dismissal of the “healthy” claim does narrow the scope of what plaintiffs can argue. They can no longer directly challenge Nature’s Bakery’s marketing on the grounds that the bars aren’t healthy—they must focus specifically on the misuse of “wholesome” language. This is a strategic narrowing that could affect the eventual damages if the plaintiffs win, since fewer marketing claims means potentially fewer affected consumers and less ground for large damage awards.
What Types of Consumers Are Affected by This Class Action?
The class action affects anyone who purchased Nature’s Bakery fig bars while they were marketed with the “Wholesome Baked In” message or related wholesome-adjacent language. This typically includes health-conscious consumers, parents buying snacks they think are nutritious for their kids, people trying to eat better, and anyone who paid a premium price based on the product’s wholesome positioning. Consumers who bought these bars thinking they were a reasonable snack choice—because of the marketing—are potential class members, even if they didn’t suffer a specific injury or disease.
One important limitation is that consumers must have actually purchased the product to be part of the class. If you didn’t buy Nature’s Bakery fig bars during the relevant time period, you wouldn’t have a claim. Additionally, some states have different consumer protection laws, which could affect who qualifies and what damages they’re eligible for. The litigation is still active, so exact eligibility details may shift as the case proceeds, but generally speaking, anyone who bought these bars in reliance on the “wholesome” marketing would likely qualify.
How Do Class Action Lawsuits Against Food Companies Work?
Class action lawsuits against food companies typically proceed in two phases: first, the court determines whether the plaintiffs have valid claims and whether enough people were affected to justify a class action, and second, the case either goes to trial, is settled, or is dismissed. In Nature’s Bakery’s case, the first phase has been partly successful for plaintiffs—the judge let the “wholesome” claims proceed, which is a significant hurdle cleared. Most food company lawsuits settle before trial because litigation is expensive and unpredictable for both sides.
If this case settles or results in judgment for plaintiffs, eligible class members typically receive compensation. Historically, food company class actions result in cash payments (which can range from a few dollars to dozens of dollars per claimant depending on the settlement size), free products, or changes to the company’s marketing practices. A settlement also usually includes attorney’s fees and administrative costs, which are paid from the settlement fund before individual class members receive their share.
What’s Next in the Nature’s Bakery Fig Bar Litigation?
The lawsuits are still in active litigation, with the “wholesome” claims having survived the initial motion to dismiss. This means both the Levit case and the Martin/Gamboa case could move toward summary judgment, trial, or settlement in the coming months or years. If either case gains momentum—particularly if discovery reveals internal Nature’s Bakery documents showing the company knew the marketing was misleading—the company might be motivated to settle rather than risk a jury verdict.
Settlement discussions often accelerate once both sides have a clearer picture of the evidence. Looking forward, these cases contribute to a broader pattern of litigation around misleading food marketing. Regulators and courts are increasingly scrutinizing how food companies use aspirational language like “wholesome,” “natural,” and “healthy” when applied to products with high sugar, sodium, or other problematic nutritional profiles. For Nature’s Bakery, the outcome of these lawsuits could necessitate changes to how it markets fig bars, potentially removing or revising the “Wholesome Baked In” messaging.