Customers who purchased Clif Bars or Clif Kid ZBars could be entitled to a share of a $12m settlement following a class-action lawsuit filed against the makers of the popular protein bars. The lawsuit, known as Ralph Milan et al. v. Clif Bar & Co., alleged that the nutritional labels on these bars were deceptive as they did not disclose the high levels of added sugar in the products. Despite claims of providing sustained energy and being made with organic ingredients, the lawsuit revealed that up to 37 percent of the calories in these bars came from added sugar, contradicting the healthy image portrayed by the brand.
In response to the case, Clif Bar & Co. has agreed to a $12m settlement, although representatives for the company and its parent company, Mondelez International, have not issued a public response yet. Consumers who purchased Clif Bars or Clif Kid ZBars between March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2023, may be eligible for compensation. The eligibility window is extended for California and New York residents, allowing claims for purchases made as far back as April 19, 2014.
Compensation amounts vary depending on the number of bars purchased, with most claims not requiring proof of purchase. Individuals who bought up to 30 bars could receive $5, those who purchased between 31 and 60 bars may get $10, and those with more than 50 bars could receive $15. Retaining purchase receipts could potentially increase compensation to $50 by claiming $15 for the first 60 bars and an additional $0.25 for each extra bar.
To file a claim, consumers can visit the class-action settlement website and complete a submission form. Each household is limited to one claim form, requiring basic information about the purchases of Clif Bar products. The process is designed to be simple and straightforward, offering consumers a way to seek compensation for their purchases.
In conclusion, consumers who bought Clif Bars or Clif Kid ZBars have the opportunity to claim a portion of a $12m settlement due to a class-action lawsuit exposing deceptive marketing practices regarding the high levels of added sugar in these products. This case serves as a reminder for consumers to scrutinize nutritional labels and be aware of the potential discrepancies between product claims and actual ingredients.