Class actions challenging allegedly misleading food labels remain a staple of consumer litigation, particularly in California. One well-known northern California District Court is universally known to class action practitioners as, “The Food Court.” Over the last decade, plaintiffs’ firms have brought hundreds of cases alleging that ingredient statements, product names, or marketing claims misled consumers about what they were buying. Many of these cases settle early, reinforcing the perception that food-label class actions are relatively low-risk endeavors for plaintiffs and their counsel.
Two recent matters, however, illustrate the limits of that assumption. In December 2025, a federal judge in the Central District of California imposed more than $623,000 in sanctions against a plaintiff and her attorneys in Edie Golikov v. Walmart Inc., a mislabeled avocado oil case that unraveled once it became clear the named plaintiff had agreed to arbitration and a class action waiver by purchasing the product on the Walmart.com website rather than buying inside a brick & mortar store. By contrast, in the widely publicized Subway tuna litigation, a court dismissed the action with prejudice but declined to sanction the plaintiff or her counsel, despite Subway’s insistence that the case was frivolous.
Read together, these outcomes underscore three points of growing importance for both plaintiffs’ and defense counsel: (1) online purchases frequently waive core consumer litigation rights through arbitration clauses embedded in the website’s arcane Terms of Use; (2) plaintiffs and their lawyers face real financial exposure when they press poorly vetted food-label claims; and (3) trial judges enjoy—and exercise—broad discretion in deciding whether questionable class actions cross the line into sanctionable conduct.
I. Online Purchases and the Quiet Waiver of Consumer Rights
One of the most consequential aspects of Golikov had nothing to do with avocado oil chemistry. It turned on how the product was purchased.
The plaintiff alleged that Walmart falsely labeled its Great Value Avocado Oil as containing only avocado oil when, according to academic testing, it allegedly also contained other, cheaper oils. On its face, this was a familiar theory, one that had fueled numerous “adulteration” cases involving olive oil, honey, balsamic vinegar, and other premium food products. The complaint alleged plaintiff purchased the product in a Walmart store, thereby avoiding the arbitration provisions that typically govern online transactions.
That allegation proved fatal. Discovery revealed that plaintiff’s only relevant purchase was made through Walmart.com, using an online account. By doing so, she agreed to Walmart’s Terms of Use, which included both a mandatory arbitration clause and a class action waiver. As Judge R. Gary Klausner later observed, the plaintiff was “never eligible,” to represent a class from the outset.
For consumers, the lesson is straightforward but often overlooked: buying food online can quietly eliminate the right to bring—or participate in—a class action. Arbitration provisions are now standard in e-commerce terms and conditions, and courts routinely enforce them. For food companies, this reality presents a strategic advantage. Encouraging online sales, maintaining well-drafted arbitration clauses, and preserving records of assent can dramatically reduce exposure to class litigation, even when the underlying labeling claims might otherwise survive a motion to dismiss.
II. The Risks of Poorly Thought-Out Food Label Claims
The sanctions award in Golikov also serves as a cautionary tale for plaintiffs’ counsel. The court did not sanction the lawyers merely for losing the case or for advancing a novel theory. Rather, it found that they unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 by failing to verify a basic, dispositive fact: where and how the product was purchased.
Judge Klausner emphasized that the false allegation regarding an in-store purchase permeated the litigation. It drove class certification briefing, discovery, and motion practice that would never have occurred had the truth been disclosed at the outset. The court rejected the argument that the error was an innocent oversight delegated to staff, reiterating that lead counsel bears personal responsibility for verifying material facts alleged in pleadings.
This is an important doctrinal point. Food-label cases often rely on technical testing, regulatory nuance, and consumer perception evidence. But Golikov shows that sanctions risk may arise from something far more mundane: sloppy factual investigation. When a plaintiff’s standing or ability to serve as class representative hinges on a single transaction, counsel must confirm that transaction with precision. Failure to do so can transform an otherwise routine consumer case into a six-figure personal liability event for counsel and the client.
III. A Contrast: The Subway Tuna Litigation
The outcome in the Subway tuna case highlights the other side of the judicial discretion coin. In that case, a plaintiff alleged Subway’s tuna products did not actually contain tuna -- -- a claim that generated substantial media attention and public skepticism. Subway vehemently denied the allegations, launched a public relations campaign, and ultimately sought sanctions after the plaintiff moved to dismiss its own case with prejudice.
Despite Subway’s characterization of the lawsuit as frivolous, the court declined to impose sanctions. The plaintiff made a motion to dismiss her own case, citing “health” and “pregnancy complications,” and the court accepted that explanation. Importantly, the case remained in relatively early stages, with limited discovery and no class certification ruling. The court evidently concluded that, whatever its merits, the litigation had not crossed the threshold of bad faith or vexatious conduct required for sanctions.
This contrast is instructive. Both cases involved high-profile food companies accused of misleading consumers. Both defendants argued that the claims lacked evidentiary support. Yet only one resulted in sanctions.
IV. Judicial Discretion and the Sanctions Line
The divergence between Golikov and the Subway case underscores the breadth of judicial discretion in sanctions determinations. Section 1927 sanctions require more than weak claims; they require subjective bad faith, recklessness, or conduct that unreasonably multiplies proceedings. Judges are acutely aware of the chilling effect sanctions can have on legitimate advocacy, particularly in consumer protection cases where information asymmetries favor defendants.
In Golikov, the court found that line was crossed because counsel persisted in a demonstrably false factual premise long after it should have been corrected. In the Subway case, by contrast, the court appears to have viewed the plaintiff’s conduct as falling within the bounds of zealous, if ultimately unsuccessful, advocacy.
For practitioners, the takeaway is that sanctions are neither automatic nor rare anomalies. They are fact-intensive, judge-specific determinations. Plaintiffs’ counsel must continually reassess claims as facts develop, particularly when new information undermines standing or class viability. Defense counsel, meanwhile, should recognize that sanctions motions are most persuasive when tied to concrete examples of wasted judicial and party resources, not merely to the weakness of the underlying claims.
V. The Value of Focusing on the Science
When defending food industry class actions, The Food Lawyers® routinely draw on the expertise of the firm’s three food and biochemistry PhD’s to evaluate the science inherent in a plaintiff’s claims. Very often, this results in plaintiffs abandoning their cases when they are forced to realize the hidden weakness in their assertions that the food purveyor is misleading the public. Sometimes, it doesn’t even require science. The author’s 35+ years of advising the food industry immediately told him the Subway tuna plaintiff’s case was frivolous. Selling the public tuna-less tuna sandwiches on the scale plaintiff was alleging would require a conspiracy of such breadth as to make Bernie Madoff envious. Whether the road to legal frivolity passes through the corridors of science or through years of experience on the mean streets of litigation, it ends in the same place: Plaintiff must abandon its case or face the consequences. Whether plaintiff’s folly is also sanctionable is informed, in part, by the doctrines articulated in the trial court holdings of Golikov and the Subway tuna case.
Conclusion
Taken together, Golikov v. Walmart and the Subway tuna litigation reflect a maturing judicial approach to food-label class actions. Courts continue to entertain consumer protection theories, but they are increasingly intolerant of factual sloppiness and strategic overreach. Online arbitration clauses can quietly but decisively reshape litigation posture, poorly vetted claims can expose plaintiffs and their lawyers to serious financial risk, and trial judges retain wide latitude in deciding when aggressive advocacy becomes sanctionable conduct.
For food companies and their counsel, these cases reinforce the value of robust e-commerce terms, early factual investigation, and strategic use of arbitration. For plaintiffs’ lawyers, they serve as a stark reminder that even in a plaintiff-friendly forum, the margin for error is shrinking.
