Halo Top Is Being Sued for Over $5 Million for 'Routinely' Under-Filling Its Pints 'for Years'
Two customers in California think part of the reason the light ice cream brand is so "guilt-free" is because they aren't fully filling their pints.
Two customers in California think part of the reason Halo Top is so “guilt-free” is because they aren’t fully filling their pints.
In a class action lawsuit, Youssif Kamal and Gillian Neely allege that the light ice cream brand has been “routinely” under-filling their ice cream packages, and that customers aren’t getting what they pay for, The Daily Meal reports.
“Halo Top underfills its ‘pints’ of ice cream,” the complaint reads. “Dramatically so at times, and as a course of business. Purchasers of the premium-priced ice cream simply have no idea how much ice cream they will get each and every time they buy a Halo Top ‘pint.’ And Halo Top has been doing this for years.”
The 13-page complaint is addressed to Eden Creamery, LLC, Halo Top’s parent company, and extensively details complaints about Halo Top’s “misleading advertising.” The complaint alleges that so much of Halo Top’s promotional value relies on being low-calorie “per pint,” but each pint contains a different amount of ice cream.
“Although Halo Top markets and sells its ice cream in pints, it does not actually deliver a pint of ice cream to its customers,” it reads.
The complaint is being filed on behalf of more than 100 people from multiple states, and they are seeking over $5 million, exclusive of interests and costs for the missing ice cream.
Want the ultimate dish on the latest celebrity food news, plus exclusive recipes, videos and more? Click here to subscribe to the People Food newsletter.
“We have never and would never ‘underfill’ our pints,” a spokesperson from Halo Top told PEOPLE in a statement. “Product settling can occur from time to time due to everything from heat fluctuations to altitude changes during shipping and handling.”
Food Navigator consulted lawyers on the matter and stated that Halo Top will likely base their defense on “slack fill,” which refers to the empty space in a container that serves a functional purpose, like protecting a product during storage or transport. But the website notes that the laws would not protect a company that purposefully fills a package “substantially less than its capacity” or any type of slack fill that doesn’t serve a functional purpose.