Yes, Nature’s Bakery is facing multiple class action lawsuits challenging their marketing of fig bars as “wholesome” despite containing high levels of sugar. The primary case, Levit v. Nature’s Bakery, LLC (Case No. 24-cv-02987), was filed in May 2024 in California federal court, with a federal judge largely denying the company’s motion to dismiss in early 2025.
The lawsuit claims that Nature’s Bakery fig bars contain 19 grams of total sugar and 14 to 16 grams of added sugar per serving—levels that the plaintiffs argue contradict the “wholesome” and “natural” messaging on the packaging and in advertising materials. Beyond the Levit case, Nature’s Bakery faces additional litigation, including the Martin & Gamboa complaint filed in February 2025 in California federal court and the Himmel case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. All three lawsuits raise similar concerns: that the company’s “Wholesome Baked In” slogan, “Best fuel for active lives” tagline, and prominent Whole Grains Council stamp mislead consumers into believing the product is a healthy snack option when its sugar content tells a different story.
Table of Contents
- What Marketing Claims Are Nature’s Bakery’s Lawsuits Challenging?
- How Much Sugar Is Actually in Nature’s Bakery Fig Bars, and What Do Dietary Guidelines Say?
- What Did Judge Jon Tigar Rule, and Why Does It Matter?
- How Many Lawsuits Has Nature’s Bakery Faced, and What Are They Claiming?
- What Should Consumers Understand About “Wholesome” Labels and Third-Party Certifications?
- How Does Nature’s Bakery’s Sugar Content Compare to Other Snack Options?
- What Could This Litigation Mean for Food Marketing and Future Product Claims?
What Marketing Claims Are Nature’s Bakery’s Lawsuits Challenging?
The core issue in all three cases centers on the gap between Nature’s Bakery’s marketing language and the actual nutritional profile of their fig bars. The company prominently displays “Wholesome Baked In” on packaging and describes their products as “Equal parts wholesome and delicious.” Advertisements tout the bars as “Best fuel for active lives,” suggesting they are appropriate for health-conscious consumers, including those with active lifestyles. Additionally, the packaging features the Whole Grains Council stamp, a recognizable certification that many consumers interpret as a mark of nutritional quality.
Plaintiffs argue these marketing strategies create a misleading overall impression. The word “wholesome” typically connotes natural ingredients, balanced nutrition, and health benefits—not what consumers would expect from a snack containing 19 grams of total sugar per bar. The combination of “wholesome” language, “natural” product descriptions, and the prominent health-related tagline “Best fuel for active lives” creates a cohesive marketing narrative designed to appeal to health-conscious buyers, according to the complaints. The lawsuits note that a reasonable consumer examining the package would likely form an impression of a nutritious, health-oriented snack based on the packaging design and language used—an impression that conflicts sharply with the product’s actual sugar content and nutrient density.
How Much Sugar Is Actually in Nature’s Bakery Fig Bars, and What Do Dietary Guidelines Say?
Each Nature’s bakery fig bar contains 19 grams of total sugar, with 14 to 16 grams classified as added sugar depending on the specific product variant. To put this in perspective, the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that added sugars comprise no more than 10 percent of daily calories for adults following a 2,000-calorie diet—roughly 25 grams per day. In Nature’s Bakery’s fig bars, the added sugar alone accounts for approximately 28 percent of the total calories per bar, according to plaintiffs’ allegations. This means a single fig bar contains more than half of the recommended daily allowance for added sugar in a single serving.
For perspective, a 12-ounce can of regular soda typically contains 39 grams of added sugar, and many popular candy bars fall in the 20 to 30-gram range. While Nature’s Bakery fig bars are positioned as a breakfast or snack option marketed to health-conscious families, their sugar profile more closely resembles that of a dessert product. For consumers with diabetes, prediabetes, or those managing weight or following dietary guidelines, the actual sugar content represents a significant consideration that the “wholesome” marketing does not adequately convey. However, some consumers may intentionally choose these bars despite the sugar content, knowing full well what they contain. The lawsuit’s core issue is not that the product contains sugar, but rather that the marketing misleads about the degree to which “wholesome” and health-oriented messaging applies to a high-sugar snack.
What Did Judge Jon Tigar Rule, and Why Does It Matter?
In early 2025, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued a ruling on Nature’s Bakery’s motion to dismiss the Levit case, largely denying the defendant’s attempt to have the lawsuit thrown out before trial. This decision is legally significant because it means the judge found that plaintiffs’ allegations were plausible—that is, a reasonable consumer could indeed be misled by Nature’s Bakery’s “wholesome” marketing claims given the product’s high sugar content. Motions to dismiss are typically the first major battle in class action litigation.
If a company successfully argues that plaintiffs’ claims are implausible or legally insufficient, the entire lawsuit can be dismissed at that stage. Judge Tigar’s decision to largely deny Nature’s Bakery’s motion signals that the court believes the core allegations—that reasonable consumers would be deceived by labeling and advertising—have legal merit and warrant proceeding to the next phases of litigation. This ruling allows discovery to move forward, meaning both sides can now exchange documents, conduct depositions, and build their cases more thoroughly. The decision does not determine whether Nature’s Bakery will be found liable, but it does establish that the claims are not frivolous and warrant judicial consideration. For consumers who purchased the product, this ruling increases the likelihood that the case will proceed toward settlement discussions or trial.
How Many Lawsuits Has Nature’s Bakery Faced, and What Are They Claiming?
Three separate class action lawsuits have been filed against Nature’s Bakery as of early 2025, though they share similar core allegations. The Levit v. Nature’s Bakery, LLC case was filed in May 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Martin & Gamboa complaint followed in February 2025, also in California federal court. The Himmel v.
Nature’s Bakery LLC case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, expanding the litigation beyond California. All three cases allege that Nature’s Bakery’s packaging and advertising misrepresent the healthfulness of the fig bars. While the cases are filed in different jurisdictions and may have different named plaintiffs and procedural histories, they target the same defendant and raise overlapping claims about deceptive marketing. The existence of multiple suits signals that consumers in different regions have independently concluded they were misled by the same marketing strategy—a common pattern in consumer protection litigation. The multiple lawsuits also mean that consumers who purchased Nature’s Bakery products may eventually have options regarding which case to participate in, depending on where they live and the eventual certification of different class definitions. However, courts sometimes consolidate related litigation to avoid duplicative proceedings, so the three cases may be coordinated or merged.
What Should Consumers Understand About “Wholesome” Labels and Third-Party Certifications?
The word “wholesome” has no official regulatory definition, which is precisely why it appears so frequently in food marketing. Manufacturers use it to convey impressions of natural ingredients, balanced nutrition, or traditional production methods. However, the term is marketing language rather than a specific claim subject to strict FDA enforcement. A product can legally be labeled “wholesome” even if it contains significant amounts of sugar, artificial additives, or other ingredients that might contradict the impression conveyed by that single word. Similarly, the Whole Grains Council stamp, while representing a legitimate third-party certification, only confirms that a product meets the council’s standards for whole grain content.
The stamp does not certify the overall healthfulness of the product, its sugar content, or its suitability as a health-focused snack. A product can include sufficient whole grains to earn the stamp while still being high in sugar and calories. Consumers often interpret such third-party logos as broader endorsements of nutritional quality than they actually represent. This gap between consumer perception and the stamp’s actual scope is a limitation of current food labeling practices. Additionally, the use of terms like “natural” remains largely unregulated by the FDA, meaning manufacturers have significant latitude in applying the label. These gaps in regulation explain why companies can market a 19-gram-sugar snack as “wholesome” and “natural” without technical violations—the real issue is whether such marketing is deceptive to the average consumer, which is what the lawsuits are asking the courts to determine.
How Does Nature’s Bakery’s Sugar Content Compare to Other Snack Options?
Nature’s Bakery fig bars contain 14 to 16 grams of added sugar per serving, placing them in the upper range of packaged snack products. For comparison, many granola bars marketed to health-conscious consumers contain 8 to 12 grams of sugar per bar, while some premium or organic bars specifically formulated to minimize added sugar contain 3 to 6 grams.
A single Nature’s Bakery bar contains more added sugar than two medium apples or a cup of low-fat yogurt combined. If positioned and marketed as a dessert product rather than a health snack—similar to how a store-brand brownie or cookie might be marketed—the sugar content would be less problematic, as consumers would have appropriate context for their nutritional choice. However, the “Best fuel for active lives” messaging and “wholesome” branding specifically position these bars as appropriate for people making health-conscious choices, which creates the contradiction that the lawsuits challenge.
What Could This Litigation Mean for Food Marketing and Future Product Claims?
The lawsuits against Nature’s Bakery represent part of a broader trend of consumer litigation challenging food companies’ use of vague health-related terms and misleading marketing language. If plaintiffs prevail in any of the three cases—or if settlement is reached—it could encourage regulatory scrutiny of how terms like “wholesome,” “natural,” and health-oriented slogans can be used without specific nutritional substantiation.
The decision by Judge Tigar to largely deny the motion to dismiss suggests that courts are increasingly willing to allow such cases to proceed based on the theory that reasonable consumers can be misled by packaging and marketing that creates an overall misleading impression, even if individual claims are technically defensible. This ruling may influence how food companies approach labeling and advertising going forward, particularly for products high in added sugar that are marketed with health-conscious messaging.