Lindt & Sprüngli is facing legal action from Consumer Reports, a US-based organization, which has filed a class action lawsuit accusing the Swiss chocolatier of selling dark chocolate bars containing harmful levels of lead and cadmium.
The lawsuit, filed in February 2023, follows tests conducted on 28 dark chocolate bars sold in the US. Among them, Lindt’s bars were found to contain concerning amounts of cadmium and lead, though they were not the highest offenders. One Lindt bar was identified as having elevated levels of cadmium, and another had high levels of lead, placing them in a group of products that raised alarms over potential health risks.
Despite these allegations, Lindt & Sprüngli strongly denied the accusations. In a statement, the company asserted, “Lindt & Sprüngli disagrees with all the allegations made in the US lawsuit,” and emphasized that its quality and safety protocols ensure its products meet all applicable safety standards and are safe for consumption.
Two of Lindt’s Ghirardelli-branded bars, however, were rated as “safer choices” in the report. Nevertheless, the lawsuit claims that consumers, who paid a premium for Lindt products expecting high-quality and safe chocolate, were misled by the company’s marketing.
Lindt responded to the claims by arguing that the phrases “excellence” and “expertly crafted with the finest ingredients” on their packaging are simply promotional language, or “puffery,” which cannot be legally challenged. Puffery refers to exaggerated claims often made for marketing purposes.
However, the court in the Eastern District of New York rejected Lindt’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The company’s defense also drew criticism in Swiss media, with some outlets expressing concern that Lindt’s argument undermines the brand’s longstanding reputation for quality. The NZZ am Sonntag weekly noted that Lindt’s approach seemed to contradict its own promises of producing high-quality goods.
Lindt clarified that its legal defense was a “technical” response aimed at challenging the plaintiffs’ claims of false advertising, not an admission of subpar product quality.
