Skip to content

What is the lawsuit against Vital Farms eggs?

2 min read

In 2021, a group of consumers, with assistance from the PETA Foundation, filed a class-action lawsuit against egg producer Vital Farms. This legal action alleged that the company's marketing, which heavily emphasizes humane animal treatment and 'pasture-raised' conditions, was false and misleading. The lawsuit against Vital Farms eggs has since seen significant developments, including its eventual dismissal, which has captured public attention and sparked discussions about food marketing transparency.

Quick Summary

A class-action lawsuit filed against Vital Farms accused the company of deceptive advertising and 'greenwashing' by making false claims about the humane treatment of its hens and the 'pasture-raised' conditions. The complaint alleged that consumers paid a premium based on misleading marketing, but the class-action claims were later dismissed by the court.

Key Points

  • Basis of Lawsuit: A 2021 class-action lawsuit accused Vital Farms of deceptive marketing and 'greenwashing' related to its 'pasture-raised' and 'ethical' claims.

  • Key Allegations: Plaintiffs cited industry practices such as male chick culling, beak trimming, and housing conditions that allegedly contradicted the company's humane image.

  • Dismissal of Class Action: In late 2024, the court dismissed the consumer class-action claims against Vital Farms, with the plaintiffs ultimately dropping their suit.

  • Distinct PETA Settlement: A separate $292,000 settlement was reached with PETA in 2023, but it was related to court-ordered sanctions for burdensome subpoenas, not the main marketing claims.

  • Company Defense: Vital Farms defended its practices, pointing to certifications from groups like Certified Humane and maintaining that its hens receive humane treatment.

  • Implications for Consumers: The case underscores the need for transparency in food marketing and highlights the difficulty consumers face in verifying ethical and humane claims.

In This Article

What is the lawsuit against Vital Farms eggs? The allegations

A class-action complaint was filed against Vital Farms in May 2021 by consumers alleging deceptive advertising and "greenwashing". Key allegations included misleading claims about "pasture-raised" conditions and inhumane treatment, citing standard industry practices. Allegations also suggested the company's focus on high production might impact hen health.

The legal proceedings and Vital Farms' defense

Vital Farms' initial defense

Vital Farms defended its practices, stating they are ethical and humane, and highlighted independent audits and certifications. The company also provided transparency regarding infrared beak trimming.

Court rulings and the dismissal

Vital Farms' initial attempt to dismiss the class-action was denied. The PETA Foundation withdrew from the lawsuit in 2023. In late 2024, the class-action claims against Vital Farms were dismissed, with plaintiffs dropping their claims by January 2025 without settlement payment from Vital Farms.

A separate settlement with PETA

A distinct settlement involved PETA, where Vital Farms paid PETA $292,000 in 2023. This was unrelated to deceptive advertising claims but resolved a dispute over sanctions for Vital Farms issuing overly broad subpoenas against PETA.

Comparison of claims and outcomes

Aspect Plaintiffs' Allegations Vital Farms' Defense Legal Outcome (Class-Action)
Deceptive 'Pasture-Raised' Claimed practice didn't meet consumer expectations. Stated it met Certified Humane standards and provided ample outdoor access. Judge initially allowed claim, later dismissed.
Inhumane Practices Cited male chick culling and beak trimming. Defended infrared beak trimming and overall humane approach. Claims included in dismissed lawsuit.
Investor Deception Suggested false ethical claims inflated stock price. Maintained commitment to "conscious capitalism". Part of the dismissed suit.
PETA Subpoena PETA sought to quash burdensome demands. Attempted to compel extensive documents. Court imposed sanctions, leading to $292,000 settlement with PETA.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Vital Farms eggs alleged deceptive marketing and greenwashing. While initially proceeding, the consumer class-action was dismissed in 2024 without Vital Farms settling with the consumer plaintiffs. A separate settlement with PETA related to subpoena sanctions occurred. This case highlights scrutiny of food marketing and verifying ethical claims. {Link: FTC provides guidance on environmental marketing claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-marketing/green-guides}.

Further Reading

{Link: FTC provides guidance on environmental marketing claims https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-marketing/green-guides} which are relevant to lawsuits like the one against Vital Farms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, a class-action lawsuit was filed in 2021 against Vital Farms, Inc. alleging deceptive advertising and 'greenwashing' over the company's 'pasture-raised' and ethical marketing claims.

The class-action claims were dismissed by the court in late 2024. By January 2025, the plaintiffs dropped their claims without payment from Vital Farms.

Yes, a $292,000 settlement with PETA in 2023 related to court-ordered sanctions for subpoenas, not the core deceptive advertising claims.

The lawsuit alleged Vital Farms' marketing was misleading regarding 'pasture-raised' conditions, claiming practices didn't meet consumer understanding despite certification.

The complaint alleged industry practices like male chick culling and beak trimming contradicted Vital Farms' humane image.

Vital Farms denied allegations, defending practices and highlighting adherence to high standards and certifications.

According to Vital Farms, the PETA Foundation withdrew from the class-action lawsuit in 2023 without stating a reason, suggesting claims were weak.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9

Medical Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice.