Reasonable Consumer Standard Defeats Omission-Based Mislabeling Claims

Plaintiffs in consumer class actions frequently attempt to hold manufacturers liable not merely for what their labels say, but for what they do not say. However, two 2026 decisions—Felsenthal v. Medela LLC, 2026 WL 879337 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2026) and Testori v. Nestle Health Science, 2026 WL 1282540 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2026)—support that not every omission can plausibly mislead the “reasonable consumer,” particularly where the alleged deception-by-omission runs contrary to common sense and factual context.

In Felsenthal, the plaintiff asserted that statements on the defendant’s baby bottle labels—“Made Without BPA” and “Dishwasher and Microwave Safe”—deceived consumers into believing the bottles do not release “unsafe levels of microplastics when they are heated.” 2026 WL 879337, at *3. The court disagreed, finding (among other things) those statements “communicate nothing about microplastics” and that “it would be unreasonable for a consumer to expect plastic products to contain no microplastics.” Id. at *4. The court also dismissed the harm allegations, concluding that the studies plaintiffs cited “[we]re not enough to nudge from possible to plausible that exposure to microplastics is unsafe.” Id.

In Testori, the manufacturer described its breakfast drink as “nutritional” and highlighted several nutritional characteristics, including 10 grams of protein per serving. 2026 WL 1282540, at *1. The plaintiff argued that the label’s failure to disclose “with equal prominence” that the two primary ingredients were water and 11 grams of sugar per serving was misleading. Id. The court disagreed, invoking “judicial experience and common sense” to reject the deception-by-omission theory. Id. at *2. It found the product’s “nutritional” characterization does not “change based on what else may be present in the drink,” noting the label makes no claim about “overall ‘health’” or a “balanced/healthy diet.” Id. at *6 n.4.  

The Testori decision also drew on consumers’ everyday experience with food products, noting their “expect[ation] that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product” to resolve any ambiguity created by the front label. Id. at *5. Though the front label made no mention of added sugar, “when considering the front label and the back label together, a reasonable consumer would not have been misled into believing that the Product has low amounts of added sugar.” Id. at *6.

While how “reasonable consumers” react to advertising may at least sometimes be argued to be a fact-specific inquiry, Felsenthal and Testori confirm that courts are willing—at the motion to dismiss stage—to draw on common experience and common sense to decide whether a plaintiff’s reading of the label is implausible as a matter of law. For stakeholders facing omission-based claims, these decisions underscore the value of early and forceful challenges to implausible consumer interpretations.