1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

---------------------------------------------------x

MARCIA SORIN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, a 

subsidiary of the J. M. SMUCKER 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------x

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Marcia Sorin (“Plaintiff” or “Sorin”), on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated 

(the “Class Members”), brings this second amended consumer class action complaint against 

Defendant The Folger Coffee Company (“Defendant” or “Folgers”), for unlawful, unfair, and

deceptive business practices in violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (the 

“FDUTPA”). Plaintiff’s allegations are based on the investigation of counsel, and the findings of 

Plaintiff’s expert chemist, and are based on information and belief, except as to the allegations 

pertaining to Plaintiff individually, which are based on personal knowledge.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Folgers coffee is a household name with sales comprising a significant portion of 

the $7.8 billion in net revenues reported by corporate parent, The J.M. Smucker Company, during 

its last fiscal year. It is estimated that Folgers has nationwide sales of approximately $1 billion. 

The coffee giant engages in false and deceptive package labeling on its brewed coffee containers

(the “Folgers Coffee Products”), including, but not limited to Folgers Classic Roast, Folgers 

Case No.: 9:20-cv-80897-WPD

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 1 of 25
2

Classic Decaf, and Folgers Black Silk with respect to the promised number of coffee servings 

contained in the package. Folgers misrepresents the number of servings its containers can provide 

in order to spur sales and disadvantage competitors who do not make similar inflated servings 

content claims. As a result, Florida consumers overpay, as they do not receive the number of 

coffee servings Folgers represents to be present in the container when using the recommended 1 

tablespoon (approximately 5 grams) of the Product, to the detriment of the consumer. This 

consumer deception hits senior citizens and individuals on a limited budget hardest, as they are led 

to believe they are getting a bargain when they are not. Short fill deception is meant to make 

comparison shopping difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, honest vendors—who do not resort 

to similar tactics—find themselves driven out of the market or seriously disadvantaged. 

2. In a practice that offends reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant 

affirmatively represents on the coffee can label the expected number of cups of coffee that the 

container can produce when the coffee is brewed according to instructions, i.e., 1 tablespoon 

(approximately 5 grams) of coffee per 6 fluid ounces of water, but this information is false because 

the can does not contain enough coffee to produce anywhere near the number of cups represented

(the “Folgers Label Claims”). Plaintiff’s expert has produced a chart that shows the true number 

of servings contained within each coffee canister using the instructed one tablespoon of coffee per 

serving. See infra, ¶ 38.

3. Thus, the stated coffee cup yield information on the Folgers Coffee Products is 

deceptive and untrue. It is no less deceptive and untrue by Defendant’s inclusion of the “up to” 

qualifying language which precedes the stated number of servings. As construed by the reasonable 

consumer in the context of the label as a whole, the Folgers Coffee Products produce the 

represented number of servings if the instructed 5 grams of coffee per 6 ounce cup is used. If, 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 2 of 25
3

however, the consumer desires a stronger brew – e.g., 6 or 7 grams of coffee per cup – the Folgers 

Coffee Products will produce a lesser number of servings. However, no reasonable consumer 

interprets the “up to” qualification to mean that, to achieve the represented number of servings, 

they will have to use approximately 30% less than the instructed 5 grams per cup (i.e., 

approximately 3.5 grams (see infra, ¶ 38)), yielding a weak, and unpalatable cup of coffee –

certainly not worth “waking up to Folgers in your cup”. Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc., 6 F. 

Supp. 3d 1300, 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (issues of fact are generally not appropriate for resolution 

on a motion to dismiss); Coleman v. CubeSmart, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2018) 

(“how a reasonable consumer would interpret a term is an issue of fact”) (citing Jankus v. Edge 

Investors, L.P., 650 F. Supp. 2d 1248, 1258 (S.D. Fla. 2009)).

4. Plaintiff and Class Members overpaid for the Folgers Coffee Products, as they did 

not receive (and could not receive) the represented number of servings when brewed using the 

instructed 5 grams per 6 ounce cup and did not receive the “benefit of the bargain” when 

purchasing Folgers Coffee Products. For example, one of the canisters Plaintiff purchased, Folgers 

Classic Roast, was advertised on Walmart.com on September 13, 2020 at $9.96 for 380 servings

($9.79 if two canisters are purchased), which is roughly 2.6 cents per serving. But those who buy 

this product, which yields only about 267 suggested strength servings, are paying roughly 3.7 cents 

per serving. Adjusted, the price should be only about $6.94, $3.02 less, or roughly 30% less. By 

overpaying in this manner and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain, Plaintiff and Class 

Members suffered monetary injury. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) in that: (1) this is a class action involving more than 100 Class Members; 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 3 of 25
4

(2) Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida; Defendant is a citizen of the State of Ohio; and (3) the amount 

in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts substantial 

business in Florida. Defendant has and continues to actively market, promote, and sell the Folgers 

Coffee Products in Florida through numerous retailers and online channels, and Defendant has 

sufficient minimum contacts with this State and/or has sufficiently availed itself of the market in 

this State through its marketing, promotion, and sales within this State, including sales in the WinnDixie and Publix grocery chains, to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible.

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred while Plaintiff 

resided in this judicial district.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Marcia Sorin resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. During the past four 

years, Plaintiff purchased three Folgers Coffee Product varieties: Folgers Classic Roast, Folgers 

Black Silk, and Folgers Classic Decaf in local markets, including Publix, containing the Folgers 

Label Claims. Plaintiff understood that to get the “up to” stated number of servings, she must 

follow the directions on the product packages and use 5 grams of coffee per 6 ounce cup. On those 

days Plaintiff wanted a stronger cup of coffee and used more coffee than recommended on the 

label, Plaintiff also understood that she would get proportionately less than the represented number 

of servings. Plaintiff did not expect, however, that in order to get the represented number of 

servings, she would have to use significantly less coffee per cup (almost 30% less), as that would 

make for a weak and unpalatable cup of coffee providing neither the caffeine nor taste benefits for 

which coffee is sold. Had Plaintiff known the truth about the Folgers Label Claims, she would not 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 4 of 25
5

have purchased the Folgers Coffee Products, or would not have paid as much for them. Plaintiff 

was thus injured in that she overpaid for the Folgers Coffee Products that did not contain the 

number of servings represented on the label. Class Members continue to purchase these products, 

reasonably but incorrectly believing that they contain enough coffee to make the advertised 

number of 5 gram servings. 

9. The Folgers Label Claims made on the products Plaintiff purchased would deceive 

an objectively reasonable consumer.

10. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Ohio, with its headquarters and principal place of business at One Strawberry Lane, Orrville, OH 

44667. Folgers is arguably the most well-known coffee maker in the United States. The coffee 

giant excels in offering a wide range of products to customers, including varying flavors, roasts,

and strengths of coffee. Since the early 1990s, it has been the largest-selling ground coffee in the 

United States. In the 1980s, Folgers’ slogan “The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup!” 

and the well-associated jingle became recognizable in households across the country, along with 

the Folgers name. Folgers generates an estimated $1 billion or more in sales each year, a 

significant portion of which is derived from sales of the Folgers Coffee Products in Florida. In 

2008, Folgers was acquired by J.M. Smucker from Procter & Gamble for a reported $3 billion.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. The Specialty Coffee Association – a non-profit, membership-based organization 

that represents thousands of coffee professionals worldwide, from producers to baristas –

recommends that a standard cup of coffee contain 10 grams of coffee per 6 fluid ounces of water. 

12. In its media statements, Defendant recommends 5-10 grams of coffee per cup.

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 5 of 25
6

13. The represented number of servings on the Folgers Coffee Product labels is based 

on the lowest end of this range, instructing consumers to use 1 tablespoon (approximately 5 grams) 

of coffee per 6 fluid ounces of water. Defendant promises consumers on the front of its Folgers 

Coffee Product labels that the products contain enough ground coffee to make “up to” a specific 

number of servings (which varies based on the size of the product container). However, even when 

following Defendant’s own instructions on the product package for a cup of coffee that is already 

mild by industry and Defendant’s own standards, the Folgers Coffee Products do not contain 

enough ground coffee to make anywhere near the number of servings represented by Defendant, 

whether by number of tablespoons or by weight.

14. This is directly contrary to the message conveyed by Defendant’s Folgers Coffee 

Product packages when construed as a whole. The package instructs consumers to use 1 

tablespoon (5 grams) of coffee per 6 ounce cup. If those instructions are followed, the package 

represents the Folgers Coffee Products could yield the represented number of servings. If, 

however, more coffee is used per cup, the “up to” language makes clear that a lesser number of 

servings will result. 

15. It is also directly contrary to what consumers have been conditioned to believe. 

Consumers view the “number of servings” presented by a manufacturer on product labels – like 

the Folgers Label Claims – as akin to a “serving size.” Because consumers associate number of 

servings with serving size, the FDA has mandated that the serving size of a product match the 

average portion of a product that an average consumer uses. 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(b)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 

101.12(a)(5).

16. Furthermore, no reasonable consumer, Plaintiff included, reasonably expected that 

to obtain the represented number of servings they would have to use almost 30% less coffee per 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 6 of 25
7

cup, particularly when that would make for a weak, and unpalatable cup of coffee. Hamilton, 6 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1309 (issues of fact are generally not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss); 

Coleman, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 1361 (“how a reasonable consumer would interpret a term is an issue 

of fact”).

17. Instead, Plaintiff reasonably understood Defendant’s “up to” stated number of 

servings to mean that, if she followed the directions provided on the product labels by Defendant, 

she would get the promised number of cups represented on the front of the package. If she used 

more coffee than recommended for any given cup – e.g., if she wanted a stronger cup of coffee –

Plaintiff understood that she would receive proportionately fewer cups. 

18. The Class members did not receive the promised number of servings, thus depriving 

them of the benefit of the bargain.

19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), although it does not directly 

regulate the products at issue here, has considerable expertise regarding how consumers may be 

misled as to promises regarding maximum portion sizes. While consumers may differ as to portion 

preferences, a label is nonetheless misleading if it deviates from the manufacturer’s recommended 

portion. Thus, for example, in an FDA Warning Letter dated November 30, 2017, the FDA 

determined that a supplement package was misleading “because the serving size declared on the 

labels are incorrect. Serving size for a dietary supplement is the maximum amount consumed per 

eating occasion as recommended on the product label...” (Emphasis added).

1

 Thus, a 

manufacturer is bound to its consumption recommendation, and cannot then pivot on its label to 

a different “serving size” based on different and more sparing levels of consumption. 

1 Available at: https://quackwatch.org/cases/fdawarning/prod/fda-warning-letters-aboutproducts-2017/truvision/.

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 7 of 25
8

20. In addition, to avoid consumer deception, the FDA has adopted the “probable yield” 

test which compares the claimed yield to what could be obtained if manufacturer instructions are 

followed. Thus, in another Warning Letter, dated September 12, 2019 the agency warned of a 

violation in that the “product label’s listed number of servings per container does not appear to be 

consistent with the product directions and the probable yield of the prepared product...”2

21. In addition to looking to FDA actions for guidance, the views of the FTC are 

relevant as well. In determining what constitutes "unfair or deceptive acts" under FDUTPA, 

considerable weight is accorded to federal interpretations of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) ("FTC Act"). Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So. 

2d 451, 453 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985). The FTC has stated:

In general, the Commission will use FDA's serving size or reference 

amounts customarily consumed, as set forth in FDA's regulations, in its 

analysis of a claim. If, however, an advertiser chooses to depict a nonstandard serving size in an advertisement, the Commission will require 

the advertiser to meet the FDA's standard both for the reference amount 

customarily consumed and for the serving size depicted.

3

22. Thus, under the various regulatory schemes, which reflect expertise in consumer 

deception, an advertiser cannot select an arbitrary number of servings, attach the phrase “up to” to 

that imaginary number, and then claim it has not deceived the average consumer who thinks in 

terms of the manufacturer’s recommendation and the amount “customarily consumed” by average 

consumers.

23. In essence, if Folgers wished to employ an exaggerated “weak coffee” reference 

number when promoting its products, it could have avoided misleading its customers by disclosing 

2

 Available at: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminalinvestigations/warning-letters/herbal-healer-academy-inc-570957-09122019.

3

 Available at: https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1994/05/enforcement-policy-statementfood-advertising

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 8 of 25
9

what number of cups would be produced if the directions on the canister were followed. But 

Defendant choose not to do so.

FOLGERS CLASSIC ROAST

24. According to Plaintiff’s expert, Folgers is short-changing its customers by a 

significant amount (See infra, ¶ 38). In Plaintiff’s case, for example, a coffee canister she 

purchased, Folgers Classic Roast, prominently states on the front label that it “MAKES UP TO 

380 6 FL OZ CUPS.” According to this canister, it contains 1360 grams. Instructions on the back 

panel of the canister direct consumers to use the following measurements: “Cold Water: 1 Serving 

(6 fl. oz)” with “Folgers Coffee: 1 Tablespoon” which yields “1 Serving (6 fl. oz.)”. Construing 

the label as a whole and giving a consistent meaning to all representations would lead the 

reasonable consumer to believe that this recipe produces coffee of “suggested strength”, and 

therefore the same consumer would then expect to be able to produce 380 cups of equally strong 

coffee, obtained using the same recipe. i.e. the canister should contain 380 tablespoons of ground 

coffee.

25. However, if the back-panel instructions are followed, the canister only produces 

approximately 267 six fluid-ounce-servings, 113 cups short of what Folgers represents on its front 

panel. This is a material shortfall that affects the two primary attributes of coffee – taste and 

strength (caffeine content) – rendering the Folgers Coffee Products weak and unpalatable. 

26. As an alternative, the back label states that to brew 10 servings, add 10 servings of 

cold water (6 oz. each) and 1⁄2 measuring cup of Folgers coffee. However, 1⁄2 measuring cup is 

actually 8 tablespoons, a fact not commonly known to the general public. This alternative method 

in a canister that holds 1360 grams, produces only 334 standard servings of diluted coffee, not the 

380 cups prominently advertised on the front of the canister. Thus, even if one were to assume 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 9 of 25
10

that every pot of coffee made from the canister was based on a 10 servings recipe, the amount of 

coffee in the Classic Roast still falls materially short (over 10%) of the representation as to the 

number of cups which could be made from the canister, and the cups that would be made would 

be weak and diluted.

FOLGERS BLACK SILK

27. Folgers Black Silk prominently states on the front label that it “MAKES UP TO 

210 6 FL OZ CUPS.” According to this canister, it contains 24.2 ounces of ground coffee or 686 

grams. Instructions on the back panel of the canister direct consumers to use the following 

measurements: “Cold Water: 1 Serving (6 fl. oz)” with “Folgers Coffee: 1 Tablespoon” which 

yields “1 Serving (6 fl. oz.)”. Construing the label as a whole means that each Black Silk canister 

should contain 210 tablespoons of coffee to satisfy the representation on the front label. A 

reasonable consumer would follow the measurements supplied by the manufacturer to obtain the 

best results—i.e, the “suggested strength.”

28. However, if the back-panel instructions are followed, the canister only produces 

approximately 149 six fluid-ounce-servings, 51 cups short of what Folgers represents on its front 

panel – meaning to achieve the “up to 210 6 fl. oz cups,” a consumer must substantially deviate 

from the directed 1 tablespoon (5 grams) per cup and use only about 3.5 grams per cup, yielding a 

flavorless cup of coffee which is not what reasonable consumers have been led to expect from 

Folgers brand marketing.

29. The alternative 10 servings recipe for coffee, in a canister that holds 865 grams, 

produces only 186 cups of diluted coffee, not the 210 cups advertised on the front of the canister. 

Thus, even if one were to assume that every pot of coffee made from the canister was based on a 

10 servings pot, the amount of coffee in the Black Silk canister still falls short of the representation 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 10 of 25
11

as to the number of cups which could be made from the canister, and the cups that would be made 

would be weak and diluted.

FOLGERS CLASSIC DECAF

30. Folgers Classic Decaf prominently states on the front label that it “MAKES UP TO 

240 6 FL OZ CUPS.” According to this canister, it contains 865 grams. Instructions on the back 

panel of the canister direct consumers to use the following measurements: “Cold Water: 1 Serving 

(6 fl. oz)” with “Folgers Coffee: 1 Tablespoon” which yields “1 Serving (6 fl. oz.)”. This means 

that each Classic Decaf canister should contain 240 tablespoons of coffee to satisfy the 

representation on the front label. A reasonable consumer would follow the measurements supplied 

by the manufacturer to obtain the best results—i.e, the “suggested strength.”

31. However, if the back-panel instructions are followed, the canister only produces 

approximately 181 six fluid-ounce-servings, 59 cups short of what Folgers represents on its front 

panel. – meaning to achieve the “up to 240 6 fl. oz cups,” a consumer must substantially deviate 

from the directed 1 tablespoon (5 grams) per cup and use only about 3.7 grams per cup, yielding 

a flavorless cup of coffee not within the reasonable expectation of consumers. 

32. The alternative 10 servings recipe for coffee, in a canister that holds 865 grams, 

produces only 227 cups of diluted coffee, not the 240 cups advertised on the front of the canister. 

Thus, even if one were to assume that every pot of coffee made from the canister was based on a 

10 servings pot, the amount of coffee in the Classic Decaf canister still falls short of the 

representation as to the number of cups which could be made from the canister, and the cups that 

would be made would be weak and diluted.

//

//

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 11 of 25
12

MEASUREMENT BY WEIGHT

33. Moreover, even if one were to follow the instructions based on weight, the Folger 

Coffee Products still fall woefully short of what is represented. The weight of 1 tablespoon of 

coffee varies by variety.

4

 Plaintiff’s expert examined each relevant variety and discerned the 

following gram weights per tablespoon illustrated below. Based on these gram weights, the 

canisters simply do not contain enough coffee to produce the promised number of cups at the 

instructed strength. (See Chart, infra ¶ 38):

34. In each of the Folgers Coffee Products that is the subject of this action, the front 

panel prominently and conspicuously states the number of cups the canister will produce, as shown 

above and in the Classic Decaf and Classic Roast canisters illustrated below and taken from 

4

https://espressocoffeeguide.com/how-much-coffee-per-cup/ (noting that 2 tablespoons is 10.6 

grams); https://www.backyardbeans.com/blog/2017/11/1/how-much-coffee-should-i-use (“1 

level tablespoon of beans or grounds is about 5 grams”).

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 12 of 25
13

commercial websites to ensure the quality of the photograph but an accurate replica of one which 

Plaintiff purchased: 

35. The back panel of each relevant Folgers product contains the information with 

respect to a “serving” as illustrated:

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 13 of 25
14

36. Folgers continues to represent to consumers that 1 tablespoon of coffee is necessary 

to achieve one suggested strength cup of coffee on its own website. There, one finds a calculator 

which advises customers how much coffee to use per cup. If one asks how to make 10 cups, the 

calculator advises you to use 10 tablespoons of Folgers Coffee:

5

5

 Screenshot taken Sept. 9, 2020 from https://www.folgerscoffee.com/coffee-how-to/how-tomeasure-coffee.

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 14 of 25
15

EXPERT ANALYSIS

37. As noted, Plaintiff retained an expert to test Folgers’ claims. The expert is a Ph.D.

chemist with experience in the coffee industry, and with appropriate training in mathematical 

measurements and testing. The expert personally brewed the varieties of coffee purchased by 

Plaintiff. In making his assessment, he took into account standard scientific measurements applied 

to brewing coffee, such as extraction yield (“EY”) and total dissolved solids (“TDS”), measured 

using an industry standard refractive index measurement. He calculated the exact gram weight per 

tablespoon for each variety. The expert also considered Folgers’ assertion that: “The general rule 

is to add 1 level tablespoon of ground coffee per cup. For example, 6 tablespoons of ground coffee 

would be recommended for making 6 cups.”6

6

 https://www.folgerscoffee.com/frequently-asked-questions, Question 3: “What Is The Best Way 

to Brew Ground and Whole Bean Coffee?” (last accessed Sept. 9, 2020).

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 15 of 25
16

38. The expert’s conclusion is that the Folgers canister claims are materially false. 

Having personally brewed the coffee according to Folgers’ instructions, verified the results and 

made scientific calculations, his findings are as follows as to the three varieties Plaintiff purchased:

39. The percent underfill is significant and well outside the expectation of even the 

unordinary consumer who construes “up to” to mean potentially less than the represented number 

of cups following Defendant’s own directions, which the reasonable consumer expects to be based 

upon and produce the maximum yield. 

40. Folgers has previously acknowledged that its coffee yield per canister is not 

accurate. In a website, Truthinadverising.com, the editors doubted the ability of a Folger’s canister 

to produce the number of cups as advertised. Folgers responded, noting that it suggests using 1-2 

tablespoons of ground coffee for every 6 fl. ounces of water based on personal preference, which 

would have an impact on the number of cups a canister will yield. Folgers then indicated that a 

30.5 oz. container, without reference to the type of coffee, “should yield about 215-240 cups per 

canister.” (https://www.truthinadvertising.org/folgers/). However, this information is not widely 

known or disseminated, and is contrary to the representations that Folger continues to make on the 

front of the canisters.

CONSUMER CONFIRMATION

41. Recent publicity concerning this issue has brought forth thousands of comments on 

websites from dissatisfied Folgers consumers. Their comments evidence the ordinary reasonable 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 16 of 25
17

consumer expectation that if the coffee is brewed as directed (1 tablespoon/cup), the represented 

number of cups will be realized. For example:

• Karen A. stated: “Please add me [to a consumer action]...the last container I bought

said up to 270 cups and that was not true.”

• Erika D. reported: “I also had this problem [of underfill] but I would just shrug it 

off because it’s my favorite brand of coffee.”

• Theresa said: “Please add me. I buy Folgers all the time and I never realized why 

my coffee never lasted as long as it should have.”

• Victoria S. complained: “I drink Folgers coffee every day. I knew I was getting 

short changed.”

• Celeste F. observed: “I have purchased 5 of these containers and they go too fast 

for the [amount] stated in them.”7

FDUTPA VIOLATIONS

42. Under the controlling law, Plaintiff is not required to plead her FDUTPA claim

with particularity, or plead the elements of fraud, as held in Guerrero v. Target Corp., 889 F. Supp. 

2d 1348, 1354-55 (S.D. Fla. 2012):

Generally "[t]he requirements of Rule 9(b) do not apply to claims 

under the FDUTPA." Galstaldi v. Sunvest Cmtys. USA, LLC, 637 F. 

Supp. 2d 1045, 1056 (S.D. Fla. 2009). Because FDUTPA was 

enacted to provide remedies for conduct outside the reach of 

traditional common law torts like fraud, "the plaintiff need not prove 

the elements of fraud to sustain an action under the 

statute." Id. (quotations omitted). Accordingly, the heightened 

pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) cannot serve as a basis to 

dismiss FDUTPA claims. Id.; see also State, Office of Atty. Gen.,

7 All quotes from https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumerproducts/beverages/folgers-class-action-says-coffee-servings-are-inflated/ (last accessed Sept. 9, 

2020).

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 17 of 25
18

Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc., 869 So. 2d 592, 598 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) ("A deceptive or unfair trade practice 

constitutes a somewhat unique tortious act because, although it is 

similar to a claim of fraud, it is different in that, unlike fraud, a party 

asserting a deceptive trade practice claim need not show actual 

reliance on the representation or omission at issue."). Accordingly, 

the Court finds that Rule 9(b) is inapplicable to Plaintiff's FDUTPA 

claims.

43. The Folgers Label Claims are objectively deceptive and, as alleged herein, violate 

FDUTPA.

44. Throughout the Class Period defined below, Defendant has engaged in, and

continues to engage in, the Folgers Label Claims. As a result, Defendant has sold thousands, if not

millions, of Folgers Coffee Products to unsuspecting consumers across Florida through its retailers 

and online sales channels during the Class Period.

45. Defendant’s Folgers Label Claims are false as discussed above, based on the fact 

that the Folgers Coffee Products are represented as having characteristics that they, in fact, do not 

have.

46. Defendant’s Folgers Label Claims are material since this practice was likely to 

deceive Plaintiff and the Class Members acting reasonably in the same circumstances. 

47. Plaintiff and the Class Members were injured in that they: (1) paid more for a 

Coffee Product that was not as represented; (2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because 

the Folgers Coffee Products they purchased were materially different than what Defendant had

stated on the label; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Folgers Coffee 

Products they purchased had less value than what Defendant represented.

//

//

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 18 of 25
19

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

48. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding

paragraph as if fully set forth herein.

49. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Class 

Members pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

seeks certification of the following Class against Defendant for violations of FDUTPA:

All consumers within the State of Florida who purchased the Folgers 

Coffee Products, as detailed herein, and which contained the Folgers 

Label Claims within the statute of limitations period, including any 

tolling period (the “Class Period”). Excluded from the Class are 

Defendant’s current or former officers, directors, and employees; 

counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant; the judicial officer to whom this 

lawsuit is assigned; and those who purchased the Folgers Cofree 

Products for the purpose of resale.

50. Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the proposed Class contains 

hundreds or even thousands of individuals who have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct as 

alleged herein. The precise number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff, but may be 

determined with reasonable accuracy through class discovery.

51. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact: This

action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions

affecting individual Class Members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are 

not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendant made false and/or misleading statements to the Class and the

public concerning the cup yield in the Folgers Coffee Products; 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 19 of 25
20

b. Whether Defendant omitted material information to the public concerning the actual 

cup yield of the Folgers Coffee Products; 

c. Whether Defendant’s packaging for the Folgers Coffee Products is misleading and 

deceptive within the meaning of the FDUTPA;

d. Whether the container label on the Folgers Coffee Products is misleading and 

deceptive; 

e. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates FDUTPA; and

f. Whether Plaintiff and the Class Members have been damaged and if so the proper 

calculation of damages. 

52. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members

because, inter alia, all Class Member have been impacted in the same way by Defendant’s false 

and misleading label claims about the serving yield of its Folgers Coffee Products. Plaintiff is 

advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all Class Members.

53. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class

Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, 

and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff has no antagonistic or adverse 

interest to those of the Class.

54. Superiority: The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to

Plaintiff and the Class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and

appropriate procedure to afford relief to her and the Class for the wrongs alleged. The damages or 

other financial detriment suffered by individual Class Members is miniscule compared to the 

burden and expense that would be entailed by individual litigation of their claims against 

Defendant. It would thus be virtually impossible for Plaintiff and Class Members, on an individual 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 20 of 25
21

basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them. Absent the class action, Class 

Members would not likely recover, or would not likely have the chance to recover, damages and/or 

restitution from Defendant, which would continue to retain the proceeds of its wrongful conduct. 

55. Unless a Class is certified, Defendant will retain monies received as a result of its 

conduct that were taken from Plaintiff and Class Members.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

(FDUTPA-- Damages Against Defendant Folgers)

56. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations previously asserted 

above. 

57. Defendant has engaged in deceptive acts and unfair practices that have caused 

actual damages to Plaintiff and the Class Members.

58. Section 501.204(1), Fla. Stat., makes unlawful “unfair methods of competition, 

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

trade or commerce.”

59. Selling, distributing, and introducing the Folgers Coffee Products in interstate 

commerce are “consumer transaction[s]” within the meaning and scope of FDUTPA.

60. Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by § 501.203, Fla. Stat.

61. The Folgers Coffee Products are goods within the meaning and scope of FDUTPA 

and Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning and scope of FDUTPA in 

connection with the sale and distribution of the Folgers Coffee Products.

62. An objectively reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the Folgers 

Label Claims, as they are inaccurate and misleading. Defendant’s practices are unfair and 

deceptive.

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 21 of 25
22

63. Plaintiff has sustained actual damages as a result of Defendant’s deceptive acts and 

unfair practices, which violate FDUTPA. 

64. Pursuant to §§501.211(2) and 501.2105, Fla. Stat., Plaintiff demands her damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, demands judgment against 

Defendant and requests the entry of:

a. An order certifying the Class as requested herein, appointing Plaintiff as Class 

Representative, and appointing her counsel as Class Counsel;

b. An order declaring that the conduct complained of herein violates FDUTPA, and 

awarding damages;

c. An order requiring Defendant to adopt proper label statements;

d. An award of attorneys’ fees and the reimbursement of litigation costs pursuant to, 

FDUTPA; and 

e. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, or proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all claims presented herein so triable.

Dated: March 18, 2021

KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.

/s/ Emily C. Komlossy

Emily Komlossy (FBN 7714)

eck@komlossylaw.com

4700 Sheridan St., Suite J

Hollywood, FL 33021

Telephone: (954) 842-2021

Fax: (954) 416-6223

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 22 of 25
23

OF COUNSEL:

Laurence D. Paskowitz

THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.

208 East 51st Street, Suite 380

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: 212-685-0969

lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com

Roy L. Jacobs

ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES

420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440

New York, NY 10170

Telephone: 212-867-1156

rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

Beth A. Keller

LAW OFFICES OF BETH A. KELLER, P.C.

118 North Bedford Road

Suite 100

Mount Kisco, NY 10549

Telephone: 914-752-3040

bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

600 W. Broadway, Suite 900

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: 619-798-4593

psyverson@bffb.com 

ELAINE A. RYAN 

CARRIE A. LALIBERTE 

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: 602-274-1100

eryan@bffb.com

claliberte@bffb.com

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 23 of 25
24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of March 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will deliver the document to all 

counsel of record as follows:

Ronald Y. Rothstein 

Sean Suber 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 558-5600

Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

rrothste@winston.com

ssuber@winston.com

Megan L. Whipp

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

333 S. Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

Telephone: (213) 615-1700

Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

mwhipp@winston.com 

Christina Calvar (FL Bar No. 114201)

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-4193

Telephone: (212) 294-5331

Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

ccalvar@winston.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE FOLGERS COFFEE COMPANY 

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 24 of 25
25

/s/ Emily C. Komlossy

Emily Komlossy (FBN 7714)

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 9:20-cv-80897-WPD Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 25 of 25