📋 Case Overview

| | |

|---|---|

| Article Type | Roundup |

| Vertical | Defective Products (Class Actions) |

| Cases Covered | 3 |

| Published | March 2026 |

Class Action Roundup: Eggland's Best Labeling Suit Advances, Andersen Windows Recall, and Intel 401(k) Case Heads to Supreme Court

Three notable consumer and investor protection cases made headlines this week, spanning misleading product labeling, a safety-related product recall, and a high-stakes retirement plan dispute now before the nation's highest court. Here's what you need to know.

1. Eggland's Best "Cage Free" Labeling Lawsuit

Status: Cleared to proceed — class action survives motion to dismiss

Who May Be Affected: Consumers who purchased Eggland's Best "cage free" egg products

A federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit targeting Eggland's Best over its "cage free" labeling can move forward, according to recent reporting on the case. The lawsuit, filed by a group of consumers, alleges that Eggland's Best misleads buyers about the actual living conditions of the hens used to produce its eggs.

According to the complaint, the term "cage free" implies a meaningful standard of animal welfare that the plaintiffs allege is not reflected in how the company's hens are actually housed or treated. The lawsuit claims consumers paid a premium price for eggs they believed were produced under more humane conditions — and that they would not have paid as much, or purchased the product at all, had they known the full picture.

The court's decision to allow the case to proceed is a procedural development, not a ruling on the merits. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Consumers who purchased Eggland's Best cage free eggs may wish to monitor this case as it develops.

2. Andersen Windows Recalls ~91,000 Window Opening Control Devices

Status: Active recall

Who May Be Affected: Owners of Andersen Windows products equipped with window opening control devices

Hazard: Potential fall and injury risks

Andersen Windows is recalling approximately 91,000 window opening control devices due to potential fall and injury hazards, the company announced. The recall affects devices that, according to available information, may fail to properly restrict how far a window opens — a function designed to prevent accidental falls, particularly in multi-story buildings.

While this development does not yet involve a class action lawsuit, product recalls of this scale often precede litigation if injuries are reported or if consumers allege the company had prior knowledge of the defect. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) oversees recalls of this nature.

Consumers who have Andersen Windows products installed in their homes — particularly those with the window opening control devices covered by this recall — may want to contact Andersen directly or visit the CPSC website for guidance on next steps. No legal action is required to participate in a manufacturer recall remedy.

For recall information: Visit the CPSC website or contact Andersen Windows directly for details on affected model numbers and available remedies.

3. U.S. Supreme Court Delays Arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corporation

Status: Arguments delayed to next Supreme Court term

Who May Be Affected: Former participants in the Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and Intel Retirement Contribution Plan

Legal Theory: Breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA

On February 11, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would delay oral arguments in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee until its next term, pushing a closely watched ERISA dispute further into the future.

The plaintiffs — former participants in Intel's 401(k) Savings Plan and Retirement Contribution Plan — allege that the plans' fiduciaries breached their duties under Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Specifically, the lawsuit claims that plan administrators invested billions of dollars of retirement assets in what the complaint characterizes as unproven, high-risk, and illiquid alternative investments, to the detriment of plan participants.

ERISA imposes a duty of prudence on retirement plan fiduciaries, requiring them to act in the best interests of plan participants when making investment decisions. The central legal question before the Supreme Court involves the standard courts should use when evaluating whether those duties were met.

The delay means a final resolution in this case remains some time away. Former Intel employees who participated in the affected retirement plans may want to follow this case, as the Supreme Court's eventual ruling could have broad implications for ERISA litigation nationwide.

Key Takeaways

• Labeling lawsuits are gaining traction. The Eggland's Best ruling signals that courts are willing to let consumers litigate claims about whether product marketing — including terms like "cage free" — meets the implied promises made to buyers.
• Product recalls don't require legal action to receive a remedy. If you own affected Andersen Windows products, contact the manufacturer directly — a lawsuit is not necessary to take advantage of a recall remedy.
• The Intel ERISA case has broad implications. A Supreme Court ruling on the standard for evaluating retirement plan fiduciary decisions could reshape how similar cases are litigated across the country, affecting millions of 401(k) participants beyond Intel's former workforce.
• Procedural developments matter. A lawsuit surviving a motion to dismiss — as in the Eggland's Best case — means the court found the allegations plausible enough to warrant further proceedings, not that the defendant has been found liable.

Have you been affected by any of the cases or recalls covered in this roundup? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on litigation developments for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.