UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

GENNARO ROCCO AND LORETTA 

SCHWEINSBURG, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No.: 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs Gennaro Rocco and Loretta Schweinsburg (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action against Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods 

Company (“Kraft Heinz” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to 

the investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the 

allegations specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal knowledge. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Maxwell House 

coffee products (collectively, the “Coffee Products”) against Defendant for manufacturing, 

distributing, and selling underfilled Coffee Products. 

2. Kraft Heinz is the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.1

 Kraft 

Heinz nets nearly $25 billion in annual sales by manufacturing, distributing, and marketing an 

extensive line of processed food products through supermarkets, restaurants, and on-the-go 

establishments in 200 countries. Kraft Heinz brands include Kraft, Heinz, Maxwell House, 

ABC, Capri Sun, Classico, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Ore-Ida, Oscar Meyer, Philadelphia, 

 

1

 https://www.investopedia.com/news/history-behind-kraft-heinz-co/ (last accessed June 22, 

2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:1
2 

Planters, Plasmon, Quero, Weight Watchers, Smart Ones, and Velveeta. Maxwell House is the 

second-largest coffee brand in the United States, with U.S. sales totaling $475 million in 2019.2

 

3. Kraft Heinz engages in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its Maxwell 

House Coffee Products. In a practice that offends reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant 

employs a classic bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more 

money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are purchasing. The 

packaging and labeling of the Coffee Products prominently advertise that they will produce a 

certain number of servings when, in fact, they do not. 

4. In this case, Plaintiffs purchased Maxwell House Coffee Products that 

prominently advertise on their front labels that they “MAKE[] UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS.” 

One serving of Maxwell House Coffee consists of one (1) tablespoon of ground coffee and one 

(1) serving of water (“6 FL OZ (3/4 CUP)”). To make the advertised 240 servings, the Coffee 

Products would have to contain approximately 240 tablespoons of ground coffee. But the Coffee 

Products purchased by Plaintiffs contained only approximately ~170 tablespoons of ground 

coffee. 

5. Defendant’s other Maxwell House Coffee Products feature the same deceptive 

advertising. These include Defendant’s 100% Colombian Roast, Breakfast Blend, Dark Roast, 

French Roast, Gourmet Roast, Vanilla, Half Caff. On each of these Coffee Products, the bottom 

of the front label prominently and conspicuously states the number of six-fluid-ounce servings of 

coffee the cannister will produce. As shown below, for example, the front label of the Maxwell 

House 100% Colombian Medium Roast states that the 24.5-ounce cannister “MAKES UP TO 

210 6 FL OZ CUPS.” 

 

2

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/188315/top-ground-coffee-brands-in-the-united-states/ (last 

accessed June 25, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:2
3 

One serving of Maxwell House Coffee consists of one (1) tablespoon of ground coffee and one 

(1) serving of water (“6 FL OZ (3/4 CUP)”). This yields one (1) six-fluid-ounce serving of 

coffee. To make the advertised 210 servings, therefore, the 100% Colombian Roast would have 

to contain approximately 210 tablespoons of ground coffee. But it contains only approximately 

134 tablespoons of ground coffee.” 

6. As explained above, and detailed in the chart below, the Coffee Products do not 

yield the number of cups advertised by Defendant. Consumers reasonably expect that the Coffee 

Products will produce the number of cups promised on the label. However, they do not. 

Defendant uniformly and systematically misrepresents the actual contents of its Coffee Products. 

Independent testing has revealed that the Coffee Products do not, and cannot, yield the advertised 

amount of coffee. Plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned an independent laboratory to perform 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:3
4 

testing of Defendant’s Coffee Products. The testing showed that the Coffee Products are 

significantly underfilled: 

7. P

laint

iffs 

and 

Clas

s 

and 

Subclass Members relied to their detriment on Defendant’s representations regarding the number 

of servings each Coffee Product would yield. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members would 

not have paid to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products – or would not have paid as much as they 

did to purchase them – had they known the truth about the products’ actual serving yields. 

Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of 

Defendant’s deceptive and false representations. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 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; (2) 

Plaintiff Rocco is a citizen of the State of New York, Plaintiff Schweinsburg is a citizen of the 

 

3

 The directions for many Maxwell House Coffee Products include two different manners of 

preparation: single serving or ten servings. For a single serving, Defendant directs the consumer 

to use one tablespoon of coffee. For ten servings, Defendant directs the consumer to use eight 

tablespoons of coffee. Regardless of the preparation method utilized, Defendant’s Coffee 

Products are underfilled and do not provide the advertised number of cups of coffee. 

Product Weight Advertised 

Cups 

Measured 

Cups (1) 

% 

Underfill 

(1)

Measured 

Cups 

(10)3

% 

Underfill 

(10) 

Original 

Roast 869 g 240 174.12 27.45% 217.65 9.3% 

Original 

Roast 326 g 90 67.27 25.25% 84.09 6.5% 

Original 

Roast 1.20 kg 325 222.66 31.4% 278.33 14.36% 

Original 

Roast 1.04 kg 288 190.80 33.75% 238.5 17.18% 

Wake Up 

Roast 869 g 240 168.57 29.7% 209.46 12.7% 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:4
5 

State of California, and Defendant is a citizen of the State of Illinois; and (3) the amount in 

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

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has its 

corporate headquarters and principal place of business in this judicial district. 

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is 

headquartered in this judicial district and, therefore, a substantial part of the decisions that led to 

the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district. 

PARTIES 

11. Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco resides in Manhattan, New York. On or about December 

10, 2019, Mr. Rocco purchased a cannister of Maxwell House Original Roast, 30.65 oz, for 

approximately $6.00 from a ShopRite grocery store located in Yonkers, New York. Mr. Rocco 

read the Coffee Product’s labeling stating that the cannister “makes up to 240” six-fluid-ounce 

cups of coffee before purchasing the Coffee Product. In reliance on this representation, Mr. 

Rocco purchased the Coffee Product for his own personal use. 

12. Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg resides in Costa Mesa, California. On or about 

May 15, 2020, Ms. Schweinsburg purchased a cannister of Maxwell House Wake Up Roast, 

30.65 oz, for approximately $4.99 from an 99 Cents Store located in Costa Mesa, California. 

Ms. Schweinsburg read the Coffee Product’s labeling stating that the cannister “makes up to 

240” six fluid-ounce cups of coffee before purchasing the Coffee Product. In reliance on this 

representation, Ms. Schweinsburg purchased the Coffee Product for her own personal use. 

13. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Maxwell House Coffee Products – or 

would not have paid as much as they did for such products – had they known that Defendant 

misrepresented the number of servings each cannister would produce. Plaintiffs were further 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:5
6 

damaged in their purchases of Maxwell House Coffee Products because Defendant’s false 

advertisements increased consumer demand, which in turn led to an artificial price increase. 

14. Plaintiffs are susceptible to this reoccurring harm because they cannot be certain 

that Defendant has corrected this deceptive and false advertising scheme, and they want to 

continue to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products. Plaintiffs greatly enjoy Maxwell House 

coffee and purchase it regularly in different varieties, but they currently cannot trust that 

Defendant will label and/or advertise its Coffee Products truthfully and accurately. Plaintiffs 

simply do not have the resources to ensure that Defendant is complying with state and federal 

law with respect to the labeling and advertising of its Maxwell House Coffee Products. 

15. Additionally, because of the large number of Coffee Products involved in 

Defendant’s deceit, and the likelihood that Defendant may yet develop and market additional 

Coffee Products that also misrepresent the actual serving yield, Plaintiffs may again, by mistake, 

purchase a falsely-advertised product from Defendant under the mistaken impression that 

Defendant has corrected its deceptive and false advertising scheme. 

16. Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the state of Delaware, with corporate co-headquarters at 200 East Randolph 

Street, Suite 7600, Chicago, Illinois 60601 and at One PPG Place, Suite 3200, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15222. Defendant is the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world, 

with annual net sales of $25 billion. Sales of Maxwell House Coffee Products totaled $475 

million in 2019. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

17. Defendant’s advertising and marketing of Maxwell House Coffee Products is 

false and misleading and omits material information. The Coffee Products prominently advertise 

on the front label that each cannister “Makes Up To ____ Cups.” One serving of Maxwell 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:6
7 

House Coffee consists of (1) tablespoon of ground coffee per one (1) six-fluid-ounce serving. 

Consumers reasonably expect that the Coffee Product will yield the number of cups advertised 

on the front label. Nowhere on the Coffee Product packaging does Defendant inform consumers 

that the cannister will not produce the number of cups advertised on the front label. Defendant’s 

misrepresentations and/or omissions violate consumers’ reasonable expectations and, as alleged 

herein, California’s and New York’s consumer protection statutes. The number of servings each 

Maxwell House Coffee Product actually produces per tablespoon is objective factual proof that 

the Coffee Products are falsely advertised. 

18. Throughout the class period defined below, Defendant has engaged in, and 

continues to engage in, an advertising and marketing campaign that misrepresents its Maxwell 

House Coffee Products. Defendant has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a pattern of 

willful conduct, through affirmative misrepresentations and/or material omissions, designed to 

mislead and lure consumers into purchasing Coffee Products they would not have otherwise 

purchased. As a result of this deception, Defendant has sold thousands, if not millions, of Coffee 

Products to unsuspecting consumers across the country, including in New York and California. 

19. Defendant’s advertising claims are false, misleading, and deceptive because 

Defendant willfully misrepresents and omits from the labeling and packaging of its Coffee 

Products information that is material to consumers’ purchasing decision – the number of servings 

of coffee that each cannister will produce. Defendant, thus, intentionally misleads consumers 

into purchasing its Coffee Products based on false, misleading, and deceptive advertising that 

portrays the Coffee Products as having characteristics that they do not, in fact, have. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:7
8 

20. In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions 

described above, Defendant knew and/or intended that consumers would purchase its Coffee 

Products and pay more for them under the false – but reasonable – belief that each cannister 

would produce more cups of coffee than it actually does. By advertising so prominently that the 

Coffee Products produce more cups than they actually do, Defendant proves that information 

about serving yield is material to consumers. If such information were not material, Defendant 

would not feature it in capital letters on the front label of every Maxwell House Coffee Product. 

21. Any reasonable consumer would rely on Defendant’s false, misleading, and 

deceptive representations and/or omissions about serving yield when deciding whether to 

purchase a Maxwell House Coffee Product. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members did so to 

their detriment. Defendant’s representations and/or omissions misled Plaintiffs and Class and 

Subclass Members and are likely to mislead the broader consuming public. 

22. As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading, 

and deceptive representations and/or omissions, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members were 

injured that they: (1) paid money for Coffee Products that were not what Defendant represented; 

(2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products they purchased were 

different than what Defendant advertised; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain 

because the Coffee Products they purchased had less value than what Defendant represented. 

23. Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations 

and/or omissions alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members would not have 

purchased the Coffee Products or would not have paid as much as they did for such products. 

Thus, each Plaintiff and Class and Subclass member suffered an injury in fact and lost money or 

property as result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:8
9 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint. 

25. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all people who purchased any 

Maxwell House Coffee Product falsely advertising the number of coffee cups that the product 

would purportedly produce during the applicable statute of limitations and who have not 

received a refund or credit for their purchase(s) (the “Class”). Specifically excluded from the 

Class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, 

corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint ventures, or 

entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities 

related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant’s officers and/or directors, the judge 

assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s immediate family. 

26. Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of Class 

Members who reside in New York (the “New York Subclass”). 

27. Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of 

Class Members who reside in California (the “California Subclass”). 

28. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definitions of the Class and Subclasses may be expanded or narrowed 

by amendment or amended complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:9
10 

29. Numerosity. The Class and Subclasses Members are geographically dispersed 

throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. Upon 

information and belief, Plaintiffs reasonably estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of 

Members in the Class and in each Subclass. Although the precise number of Class and Subclass 

Members is unknown to Plaintiffs, it is known by Defendant and may be determined through 

discovery. 

30. Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Common 

questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class and Subclasses and predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual Class or Subclass 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 

consuming public concerning the serving yield in the Coffee Products; 

(b) Whether Defendant omitted material information to the consuming public 

concerning the actual serving yield in the Coffee Products; 

(c) Whether Defendant’s labeling and packaging for the Coffee Products is 

misleading and/or deceptive; 

(d) Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business 

practices with respect to the advertising and sale of the Coffee Products; 

(e) Whether Defendant’s representations concerning the Coffee Products were 

likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; 

(f) Whether Defendant’s omissions concerning the Coffee Products were 

likely to deceive a reasonable consumer; 

(g) Whether Defendant represented to consumers that the Coffee Products 

have characteristics, benefits, or qualities that they do not have; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:10
11 

(h) Whether Defendant advertised the Coffee Products with the intent to sell 

them not as advertised; 

(i) Whether Defendant falsely advertised the Coffee Products; 

(j) Whether Defendant made and breached express and/or implied warranties 

to Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members about the Coffee Products; 

(k) Whether Defendant’s representations, omissions, and/or breaches caused 

injury to Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members; and 

(l) Whether Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members are entitled to 

damages. 

31. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other Members of 

the Class and Subclasses in that, among other things, all Class and Subclass Members were 

deceived (or reasonably likely to be deceived) in the same way by Defendant’s false and 

misleading advertising claims about the serving yield of its Maxwell House Coffee Products. All 

Class and Subclass Members were comparably injured by Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set 

forth herein. Further, there are no defenses available to Defendant that are unique to Plaintiffs. 

32. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the Members of the Class and Subclasses. Plaintiffs have retained counsel that is 

highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to 

vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class and Subclasses. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 

have no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class or Subclasses. 

33. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered 

by individual Class and Subclass Members are relatively small compared to the burden and 

expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendant. It would, thus, be virtually 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:11
12 

impossible for Class or Subclass Members to obtain effective redress on an individual basis for 

the wrongs committed against them. Even if Class or Subclass Members could afford such 

individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create the 

danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts. It would 

also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the issues raised by 

this action. The class action device provides the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a 

single proceeding, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and 

presents no unusual management difficulties under the circumstances. 

34. In the alternative, the Class and Subclasses may also be certified because: 

(a) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass 

Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with 

respect to individual Class or Subclass Members that would establish 

incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; 

(b) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass 

Members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that 

would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class 

and Subclass Members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially 

impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and/or 

(c) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

the Class and to each Subclass as a whole, thereby making appropriate 

final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the Members of 

the Class and to the Members of each Subclass as a whole. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:12
13 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation Of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. 

(On Behalf Of The California Subclass) 

35. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

36. Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg brings this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant. 

37. Defendant violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”) 

by engaging in the following unfair and deceptive business practices, as alleged above and 

herein: 

(a) Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) by representing that the 

Coffee Products have characteristics that they do not have. 

(b) Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9) by advertising the Coffee 

Products with the intent not to sell them as advertised. 

38. The CLRA was enacted to protect consumers against such practices. The CLRA 

applies to Defendant’s conduct because the statute covers all sales of goods to consumers. 

39. Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the California Subclass are 

“consumers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d). By purchasing Defendant’s 

Maxwell House Coffee Products, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the California 

Subclass engaged in “transactions” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1761(e) and 1770. 

40. Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c). 

Defendant’s Coffee Products are “goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a). 

41. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business practices, as alleged above and herein, 

were intended to and did result in the sale of the Coffee Products.

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:13
14 

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business 

practices, as alleged above and herein, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the 

California Subclass suffered injury and damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

43. On information and belief, Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business practices, as 

alleged above and herein, were willful, wanton, and fraudulent.

44. On information and belief, Defendant’s officers, directors, and/or managing 

agents authorized the use of the false and misleading statements and material omissions 

regarding the serving yield of Defendant’s Coffee Products, as alleged above and herein.

45. On June 16, 2020, prior to the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent 

Defendant a CLRA notice letter, which complies in all respects with California Civil Code 

§1782(a). The letter also provided notice of breach of express and implied warranties. The letter 

was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, advising Defendant that it was in violation 

of the CLRA and demanding that it cease and desist from such violations and make full 

restitution by refunding the monies received therefrom. The letter stated that it was sent on 

behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated purchasers. 

46. Plaintiff Schweinsburg and the California Subclass Members seek to enjoin the 

unlawful acts and practices described herein. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation Of Unfair Competition Law, 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 

(On Behalf Of The California Subclass) 

47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

48. Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg brings this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:14
15 

49. Defendant violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210, by engaging in unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices.

50. Plaintiff Schweinsburg has standing to pursue this claim because she has suffered 

an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and 

fraudulent conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff Schweinsburg purchased a Maxwell House Coffee 

Product for her own personal consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff Schweinsburg relied upon 

Defendant’s false representations that the Coffee Product would produce more servings of coffee 

than it actually did. Plaintiff Schweinsburg spent money in the transaction that she otherwise 

would not have spent had she known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims.

“Unfair” Prong of the UCL 

51. A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if it offends an established 

public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to 

consumers. That unfairness is determined by weighing the reasons, justifications, and motives 

for the business act or practice against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victims.

52. Defendant’s conduct constitutes an “unfair” business practice because, as alleged 

herein, Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in a false, misleading, and deceptive 

advertising campaign that misleads consumers into believing that the Coffee Products they 

purchase will yield a greater number of servings than each cannister actually contains. 

53. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above and herein, was not motivated by any 

legitimate business or economic need or rationale, other than to maximize its profits at the 

expense of consumers. No legitimate reasons, justifications, or motives outweigh the harm and 

adverse impact of Defendant’s conduct on members of the general consuming public. Defendant 

engaged, and continues to engage, in such conduct solely to wrongfully extract monies from 

consumers, including Plaintiff Schweinsburg, to which Defendant is not entitled. Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:15
16 

could have, but has not, used alternate means of effecting its legitimate business needs, such as 

by properly disclosing (1) how many servings of coffee each Coffee Product produces, and/or 

(2) that the Coffee Products produce fewer than the “MAKES UP TO ___ CUPS” number of 

servings advertised on the front label. 

54. Defendant’s conduct harms consumers and hurts market competition. 

Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, 

unconscionable, and/or substantially injurious to Plaintiff Schweinsburg and Members of the 

California Subclass because it violates consumers’ reasonable expectations. If Defendant had 

advertised its Coffee Products in a non-misleading fashion, Plaintiff and other California 

Subclass Members could have considered other options for purchasing coffee grounds. 

“Fraudulent” Prong of the UCL 

55. A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to deceive 

members of the consuming public. 

56. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in a “fraudulent” business 

practice by knowingly representing to consumers that the Coffee Products they purchase will 

yield a greater number of servings than they actually do. Defendant’s conduct deceived Plaintiff 

Schweinsburg and other California Subclass Members who purchased the Coffee Products in 

reliance on the advertised serving yield, and it is highly likely to deceive members of the 

consuming public because, as alleged above, it violates consumers’ reasonable expectations 

regarding serving yield. Such a business practice lacks utility and functions only to maximize 

Defendant’s profits at the expense of its customers. The gravity of the harm to Plaintiff 

Schweinsburg and other California Subclass Members, who lost money or property by paying for 

the Coffee Products, far outweighs any benefit of Defendant’s conduct. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:16
17 

57. Further, Defendant’s fraudulent business practice will continue to mislead 

consumers because it will be impossible for consumers to know whether Defendant has stopped 

misrepresenting the serving yield of its Coffee Products until after consumers purchase such 

products. Accordingly, the risk of harm to Plaintiff Schweinsburg, Members of the California 

Subclass, and the consuming public is ongoing. 

“Unlawful” Prong of the UCL 

58. A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law 

or regulation. 

59. Defendant’s business practices, as alleged herein, constitute violations of 

California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”). 

Specifically, Defendant has unlawfully marketed and advertised its Maxwell House Coffee 

Products in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770(a)(5) and 1770(a)(9), as detailed below. 

60. Defendant’s business practices also constitute violations of California’s False 

Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. (the “FAL”), as detailed below. 

61. Defendant’s unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, as enumerated 

and explained above, were the direct and proximate cause of financial injury to Plaintiff 

Schweinsburg and other Members of the California Subclass. Defendant has unjustly benefitted 

as a result of its wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and the California 

Subclass seek an order of this Court that includes, but is not limited to, requiring Defendant to: 

(a) provide restitution to Plaintiff and other California Subclass Members; (b) disgorge all 

revenues obtained as a result of its violations of the UCL; (c) pay attorneys’ fees and costs for 

Plaintiff and the California Subclass. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:17
18 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violation Of False Advertising Law, 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. 

(On Behalf Of The California Subclass) 

62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

63. Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg brings this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant. 

64. Defendant violated California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 17500 by publicly disseminating false, misleading, and/or unsubstantiated 

advertisements regarding its Maxwell House Coffee Products as alleged above and herein. 

65. Plaintiff Schweinsburg has standing to pursue this claim because she has suffered 

an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s false advertising. 

Specifically, Plaintiff Schweinsburg purchased a Maxwell House Coffee Product for her own 

personal consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff Schweinsburg relied upon Defendant’s false, and 

misleading representations that the Coffee Product would produce more servings of coffee than it 

actually did. Plaintiff Schweinsburg spent money in the transaction that she otherwise would not 

have spent had she known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims. 

66. Defendant disseminated false and misleading advertisements to increase the sales 

of its Maxwell House Coffee Products. 

67. Defendant knew or should have known that the advertisements for its Maxwell 

House Coffee Products were false and/or misleading. 

68. Defendant knew or should have known that consumers, including Plaintiff 

Schweinsburg and other Members of the California Subclass, would believe that the Coffee 

Products would produce the number of servings prominently advertised on their front labels.

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:18
19 

69. Plaintiff Schweinsburg and Members of the California Subclass have suffered 

harm as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FAL because they paid monies for the Coffee 

Products that they would not have paid but for Defendant’s false and misleading advertisements. 

70. Accordingly, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and Members of the California Subclass 

seek an order of this Court that includes, but is not limited to, requiring Defendant to: (a) provide 

restitution to Plaintiff and other California Subclass Members; (b) disgorge all revenues 

obtained as a result of its violations of the FAL; (c) pay attorneys’ fees and costs for Plaintiff and 

the California Subclass. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Deceptive Acts Or Practices, 

Violation Of New York Gen. Bus. Law § 349

(On Behalf Of The New York Subclass) 

71. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

72. Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco brings this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Members of the proposed New York Subclass against Defendant. 

73. Defendant committed deceptive acts and practices by employing false, 

misleading, and deceptive representations and/or omissions about the serving yield of its Coffee 

Products to mislead consumers into believing the Coffee Products they purchase will yield a 

greater number of servings than each cannister actually contains. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:19
20 

74. Plaintiff Rocco has standing to pursue this claim because he has suffered an 

injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s deceptive acts and 

practices. Specifically, Plaintiff Rocco purchased a Coffee Product for his own personal 

consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff Rocco relied upon Defendant’s false, misleading, and 

deceptive representations that the Coffee Product would produce more servings of coffee than it 

actually did. Plaintiff Rocco spent money in the transaction that he otherwise would not have 

spent had he known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims.

75. Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers. 

76. Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way because 

they violate consumers’ reasonable expectations. Defendant knew consumers would purchase 

Coffee Products and/or pay more for them under the false – but reasonable – belief that each 

cannister would produce more servings than it actually does. By advertising so prominently that 

the Coffee Products yield more servings than they actually do, Defendant proves that information 

about serving yield is material to consumers. If such information were not material, Defendant 

would not feature it in capital letters on the front label of every Coffee Product cannister. As a 

result of its deceptive acts and practices, Defendant has sold thousands, if not millions, of Coffee 

Products to unsuspecting consumers across New York. If Defendant had advertised its Coffee 

Products truthfully and in a non-misleading fashion, Plaintiff and other New York Subclass 

Members would not have purchased them or would not have paid as much as they did for them. 

77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive 

representations and/or omissions, Plaintiff Rocco and other Members of the New York Subclass 

were injured in that they: (1) paid money for Coffee Products that were not what Defendant 

represented; (2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products they 

purchased were different than Defendant advertised; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:20
21 

bargain because the Coffee Products they purchased had less value than Defendant represented. 

78. On behalf of himself and Members of the New York Subclass, Plaintiff Rocco 

seeks to enjoin Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices and recover his actual damages or fifty 

(50) dollars, whichever is greater, three times actual damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

False Advertising, 

Violation Of New York Gen. Bus. Law § 350

(On Behalf Of The New York Subclass) 

79. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

80. Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco brings this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Members of the proposed New York Subclass against Defendant.

81. Defendant engaged in a campaign of false advertising with regard to the serving 

yield of its Coffee Products to mislead consumers into believing the Coffee Products they 

purchase will yield a greater number of servings than each cannister actually contains. 

82. Plaintiff Rocco has standing to pursue this claim because he has suffered an 

injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s deceptive acts and 

practices. Specifically, Plaintiff Rocco purchased a Coffee Product for his own personal 

consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff Rocco relied upon Defendant’s false, misleading, and 

deceptive representations that the Coffee Product would produce more servings of coffee than it 

actually did. Plaintiff Rocco spent money in the transaction that he otherwise would not have 

spent had he known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims.

83. Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers. 

84. Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way 

because, as alleged above and herein, they violate consumers’ reasonable expectations. If 

Defendant had advertised its Coffee Products truthfully and in a non-misleading fashion, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:21
22 

Plaintiff and other New York Subclass Members would not have purchased the Coffee Products 

or would not have paid as much as they did for them. 

85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive 

representations and omissions, Plaintiff Rocco and other Members of the New York Subclass 

were injured in that they: (1) paid money for Coffee Products that were not what Defendant 

represented; (2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products they 

purchased were different than Defendant advertised; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the 

bargain because the Coffee Products they purchased had less value than Defendant represented. 

86. On behalf of himself and Members of the New York Subclass, Plaintiff Rocco 

seeks to enjoin Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices and recover his actual damages or five 

hundred (500) dollars per violation, whichever is greater, three times actual damages, and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Breach of Express Warranty 

(On Behalf Of The Class, The California Subclass, And The New York Subclass) 

87. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

88. Plaintiffs Gennaro Rocco and Loretta Schweinsburg bring this claim individually 

and on behalf of the Members of the proposed Class and Subclasses against Defendant.

89. As the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller of Maxwell 

House Coffee Products, Defendant issued an express warranty by representing to consumers at 

the point of purchase that each Coffee Product would yield a certain number of servings of 

coffee. Defendant’s representations were part of the description of the goods and the bargain 

upon which the goods were offered for sale and purchased by Plaintiffs and Members of the 

Class and Subclasses. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:22
23 

90. In fact, the Coffee Products do not conform to Defendant’s representations about 

serving yield. Each Coffee Product produces fewer servings of coffee than what Defendant 

represents. By falsely representing the Coffee Products in this way, Defendant breached express 

warranties. 

91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and Members of 

the Class and Subclasses were injured because they: (1) paid money for Coffee Products that 

were not what Defendant represented; (2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the 

Coffee Products they purchased were different than Defendant advertised; and (3) were deprived 

of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products they purchased had less value than 

Defendant represented. Had Defendant not breached the express warranty by making the false 

representations alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members would not have 

purchased the Coffee Products or would not have paid as much as they did for them. 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Breach of Implied Warranty 

(On Behalf Of The Class, The California Subclass, And The New York Subclass) 

92. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations 

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

93. Plaintiffs Gennaro Rocco and Loretta Schweinsburg bring this claim individually 

and on behalf of the Members of the proposed Class and Subclasses against Defendant.

94. Defendant routinely engages in the manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of 

Maxwell House Coffee Products and is a merchant that deals in such goods or otherwise holds 

itself out as having knowledge or skill particular to the practices and goods involved. 

95. Plaintiffs and Members of the Class and Subclasses were consumers who 

purchased Defendant’s Coffee Products for the ordinary purpose of such products.

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:23
24 

96. By representing that the Coffee Products would produce a certain number of 

servings, Defendant impliedly warranted to consumers that the Coffee Products were 

merchantable, such that they were of the same average grade, quality, and value as similar goods 

sold under similar circumstances. 

97. However, the Coffee Products were not of the same average grade, quality, and 

value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances. Thus, they were not merchantable and, 

as such, would not pass without objection in the trade or industry under the contract description. 

98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and Members of 

the Class and Subclasses were injured because they paid money for Coffee Products that would 

not pass without objection in the trade or industry under the contract description. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek 

judgment against Defendant as follows: 

a. Certifying the nationwide Class, the New York Subclass, and the California Subclass 

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiffs as 

representatives of the Class and respective Subclasses and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as 

Class Counsel to represent the Class and Subclass Members; 

b. Declaring that Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes referenced herein; 

c. Finding in favor of Plaintiffs, the nationwide Class, the New York Subclass, and the 

California Subclass against Defendant on all counts asserted herein; 

d. Ordering Defendant to disgorge and make restitution of all monies Defendant 

acquired by means of the unlawful practices as set forth herein; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:24
25 

e. Awarding declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including: 

enjoining Defendant from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, and 

directing Defendant to identify, with Court supervision, victims of its conduct and 

pay them all the money it is required to pay; 

f. Awarding Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members their costs and expenses 

incurred in the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

g. Ordering Defendant to pay pre-judgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

h. Providing such further relief as may be just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any 

and all issues in this action so triable of right. 

Dated: August 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER 

 FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 

By: /s/ Carl V. Malmstrom 

 Carl V. Malmstrom 

Carl V. Malmstrom 

111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Telephone: (312) 984-0000 

Email: malmstrom@whafh.com 

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 

L. Timothy Fisher* 

Brittany S. Scott* 

1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Tel: (925) 300-4455 

Fax: (925) 407-2700 

E-Mail: bscott@bursor.com 

*Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:25
26 

CLRA Venue Declaration Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1780(d) 

I, Carl V. Malmstrom declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of Illinois and a member 

of the bar of this Court. I am Of Counsel at Wolf Haldenstein, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in 

this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a 

witness, I could and would competently testify thereto under oath. 

2. The Complaint filed in this action is filed in the proper place for trial under Civil 

Code Section 1780(d) in that a substantial portion of the events alleged in the Complaint 

occurred in the Northern District of Illinois. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Illinois and the 

United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at 

Chicago, Illinois this 4th day of August, 2020. 

 /s/ Carl V. Malmstrom _ 

 Carl V. Malmstrom 

Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:26