Treehouse Foods Faces Class Actions Over Waffle Recall Linked to Listeria Contamination

Case Overview: Two class action lawsuits have been filed against Treehouse Foods over a recall of frozen waffles due to potential Listeria contamination. Consumers allege the company sold unsafe products and misled the public about the safety of its waffles.

Consumers Affected: Consumers who purchased the recalled Treehouse Foods frozen waffles.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Treehouse Foods Inc., a key supplier of frozen waffles and pancakes for retailers like Target and Walmart, is dealing with two separate class action lawsuits related to a recent recall over possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Filed in Illinois and New York, these lawsuits claim that Treehouse sold products that posed health risks, leading consumers to question the safety of their purchases.

On October 18, Treehouse recalled certain frozen waffle products after routine testing at its manufacturing facility showed possible contamination. This recall was expanded on October 22. Listeria monocytogenes, the bacteria involved, can cause serious health complications, especially in pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with weakened immune systems. Treehouse advised customers to throw away the affected products or return them to the store for a refund.

Listeria monocytogenes can lead to listeriosis, an infection that is particularly dangerous for vulnerable groups like pregnant women, infants, and elderly individuals. Symptoms of listeriosis can include fever, muscle aches, nausea, and, in more serious cases, complications like meningitis or septicemia. Both lawsuits highlight the health risks associated with Listeria and stress the importance of preventive measures to protect consumers from these outcomes.

Listeria-Contaminated Waffles Spark Lawsuits

In Illinois federal court, plaintiff Amanda Rugg-Harrell filed a complaint after purchasing the recalled waffles from her local Walmart and reportedly becoming ill. Her lawsuit states that consumers “bargained for waffles that were safe to consume” but received products that posed potential health risks instead.

Rugg-Harrell’s suit claims Treehouse could have done more to ensure product safety before the contamination occurred. She seeks to hold the company accountable and to recover the cost of the recalled products for affected Illinois consumers.

In a similar case filed in New York federal court, plaintiff Damany Browne alleges that he paid a premium for the waffles, expecting them to be safe and trustworthy. Browne’s lawsuit claims Treehouse misled consumers by not disclosing the potential contamination and suggests that the company’s labeling and marketing created a false sense of safety.

Browne also challenges Treehouse’s recall approach, arguing that many customers are likely to have discarded the waffles without proof of purchase, which limits their ability to receive a refund. His lawsuit seeks to represent New York consumers who bought the recalled waffles, requesting reimbursement and improvements to Treehouse’s recall process.

Treehouse Misled Consumers on Waffle Safety

Both lawsuits claim that Treehouse’s labeling and marketing led customers to believe the waffles were safe to eat, creating an expectation of reliability. Rugg-Harrell and Browne argue that Treehouse did not meet this expectation by allowing potential contamination and failing to be transparent with consumers. They aim to hold Treehouse responsible for what they see as a shortfall in safety and quality.

The plaintiffs emphasize that consumers have a reasonable expectation of safety, particularly for food products used by families. They argue that Treehouse’s actions were not in line with these expectations and seek to address this gap through the legal system.

Recall Process and Safety Measures Challenged

Browne’s lawsuit also critiques Treehouse’s recall process, arguing that the company’s approach may prevent many customers from receiving a refund. He notes that consumers do not typically keep receipts for grocery items, which makes it harder for them to prove their purchase and participate in the recall. Browne claims that Treehouse’s instructions to “dispose of the recalled product or return it to the place of purchase” don’t account for the realities of customer habits and could limit the recall’s effectiveness.

Rugg-Harrell’s suit in Illinois echoes concerns about Treehouse’s response, suggesting that stronger steps could have been taken to prevent the contamination and improve safety measures for consumers.

Both lawsuits cite claims of negligence and violations of state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs argue that Treehouse’s handling of the situation—selling potentially contaminated products and implementing a limited recall—did not meet consumer protection standards. They are seeking financial compensation for the recalled products and any related health impacts. Additionally, the lawsuits request a court order requiring Treehouse to enhance safety measures to prevent future issues.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Rugg-Harrell v. Treehouse Foods Inc.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-10992
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Attorneys for Rugg-Harell and proposed class: Roy T. Willey, IV and Paul J. Doolittle (Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC).

• Lawsuit: Browne v. Treehouse Foods Inc.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-07578
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
• Attorneys for Browne and proposed class: Jason P. Sultzer and Daniel Markowitz (Sultzer & Lipari PLLC), Jeffrey K. Brown (Leeds Brown Law PC), Michael R. Reese and Carlos F. Ramirez (Reese LLP), and Russell M. Busch, Nick SuciuIII and Trenton R. Kashima (Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC).

Did you purchase any of the recalled Treehouse Foods frozen waffles? Share your experience in the comments below.