Introduction

Target Corporation is facing a proposed class action in California alleging that its Good & Gather pasta sauces were deceptively marketed as containing “no artificial preservatives” despite containing synthetic citric acid, a substance that can function as a preservative. The suit—Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp.—was originally brought in Orange County Superior Court in March 2025 and has since been removed to federal court[i] under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).[ii] Plaintiff, Jennifer Deforest, claims Target’s labeling of these pasta sauces misleads consumers and violates California’s consumer protection statutes.

This case exemplifies a growing trend of litigation challenging “natural” or “preservative-free” claims on food labels. This trend has recently ensnared other major companies as well (for example, similar citric acid lawsuits have targeted major companies.

Statement of Facts

1. Allegations and Product Details

The Deforest complaint centers on Target’s Good & Gather brand pasta sauces, a line of at least nine sauce varieties including Traditional, Marinara, “Organic Roasted Garlic,” and “Organic Three Cheese,” among others.[iii] Each jar’s front label declares, “No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives,” a representation that the plaintiff contends is false and misleading.[iv]

According to the complaint, these sauces do in fact contain an artificial preservative: citric acid. While citric acid can occur naturally in citrus fruits, the form used in commercial foods is typically synthetically produced. Deforest alleges that Target “uses a synthetic form of citric acid that is derived from heavy chemical processing” in its sauces.[v] In fact, over 90% of the citric acid used in food manufacturing is produced industrially, often via microbial fermentation using a strain of Aspergillus niger mold fed on corn syrup. This manufacturing process yields “manufactured citric acid,” a common additive that the complaint says acts as a preservative in the sauces.[vi] In support, the plaintiff notes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself classifies citric acid as a preservative in its official guidance materials.

Under FDA regulations, a “chemical preservative” is defined as any chemical added to food that prevents or slows spoilage (with exceptions for common salt, sugars, vinegars, etc.), and citric acid appears on the FDA’s published list of preservatives.[vii] The complaint also points to FDA warning letters in which the agency warned food producers that products containing citric acid (and similar additives) were misbranded when labeled as preservative-free or “all natural.”

2. Plaintiff’s Claims

Relying on these facts, Deforest asserts that Target’s “no artificial preservatives” claim is unlawful and deceptive. She contends that the pasta sauces are misbranded under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because a synthetic preservative is present. This alleged misbranding serves as a predicate for violations of California’s consumer protection statutes – specifically, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and the False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

The lawsuit quotes Target’s packaging and advertising, arguing that the company’s branding is intended to “give consumers the impression they are buying a premium product free from preservatives” when that is not the case.[viii] Deforest alleges that she and other shoppers reasonably relied on the “no artificial preservatives” representation—for example, she purchased a jar of Good & Gather sauce in Orange County in January 2025 specifically because she believed it contained no artificial additives. Had she known the truth—that the sauce contained a synthetic preservative—she asserts she would not have bought it, or would have paid less for it.

The complaint thus claims consumers did not get the benefit of their bargain, and even suffered an invasion of their interest in choosing the quality and type of products they ingest. In addition to injunctive relief to stop the alleged mislabeling, the suit seeks restitution, damages, and other remedies on behalf of affected consumers.

3. Class Definition and CAFA Removal

The proposed class is expansive. Deforest seeks to represent a nationwide class of all purchasers of the Good & Gather pasta sauces with the “no artificial preservatives” labeling, as well as a subclass of California purchasers. The class period is defined as the four years prior to the filing of the complaint up through the date of class certification, consistent with California’s four-year statute of limitations for UCL claims.[ix] Given Target’s national reach, the complaint estimates the class includes “thousands, if not millions” of consumers.[x]

In April 2025, Target removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, invoking federal jurisdiction under CAFA. In its removal papers, Target provided a declaration from a company analyst showing the stakes: over 3 million units of the relevant pasta sauces were sold in California alone during the class period, with more than $6 million in revenue from those California sales. These figures easily satisfy CAFA’s thresholds (≥100 class members and >$5 million in controversy).

4. Related Litigation

Notably, Target identified Deforest’s suit as related to an earlier case filed in 2024 involving similar allegations. In May 2024, a California consumer named Jennifer Carbine filed a class action against Target with virtually the same core claim—that Good & Gather pasta sauces labeled “No Artificial Preservatives” contain synthetic citric acid.[xi] That case  is being overseen by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As of February 2025, Judge Fitzgerald denied Target’s motion to dismiss the Carbine complaint, allowing the false advertising claims to move forward.[xii] The court found the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the citric acid was artificial and could function as a preservative, rejecting Target’s attempt to impose “too stringent” a pleading standard.[xiii]

This development in the 2024 case suggests a judicial willingness to treat the citric acid issue as a factual question inappropriate for dismissal at the pleadings stage. In addition to the California actions, Target is also contending with a parallel suit filed in New York federal court by a plaintiff named LaTonya Wright, who similarly alleges that Target’s pasta sauce labeling misled New York consumers and violated that state’s consumer protection laws.[xiv]

Takeaways for Clients

1. Heightened Litigation Risk for “Natural” and “Preservative-Free” Claims

The Deforest lawsuit underscores the significant compliance and litigation risks that arise from using “all natural”, “no preservatives”, or similar claims in food labeling. Such representations are highly appealing to consumers but invite close scrutiny of ingredient lists by the plaintiffs’ bar. If any ingredient can arguably be characterized as artificial or as serving a preservative function, a company may find itself defending a class action. Citric acid is a prime example. It is a ubiquitous additive (used for tart flavor and pH control) that consumers might not intuitively view as a “preservative,” yet plaintiffs’ attorneys—armed with scientific studies and regulatory materials—can convincingly paint it as exactly that.

Courts are increasingly allowing these cases to proceed into discovery on the theory that whether an ingredient like citric acid is “artificial” or functions as a preservative is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss or other dispositive motion. This means that once a suit is filed, a food manufacturer often cannot count on a quick early dismissal; the litigation may endure and generate significant legal expenses and, potentially, liability. The recent wave of citric acid-focused lawsuits—hitting national brands like Target, Walmart, Kraft Heinz, and others—signals that plaintiffs are actively targeting “clean label” claims across the industry. Companies making such claims should assume that their labels will be put under a microscope, and any arguably synthetic ingredient may become a flashpoint for litigation.

2. The Role of Federal Guidance and Enforcement in Defining Deceptive

• • Labeling

One striking aspect of these cases is the heavy reliance on federal regulatory guidance and enforcement history to establish that a label claim is deceptive. In the absence of a formal FDA definition of “natural,” litigants look to the FDA’s informal policy that “nothing artificial or synthetic…has been included” in a product called natural.[xv] Likewise, for “preservative-free” claims, the FDA’s regulations and warning letters effectively set a standard. The Deforest case leverages an FDA regulation (21 C.F.R. § 101.22) defining “chemical preservatives” and points out that, under those rules, a manufacturer must not only list citric acid in the ingredients but also disclose its function as a preservative if it indeed serves that purpose.

The complaint cites FDA warning letters to other companies (for example, a letter to Chiquita/Fresh Express) where regulators deemed products mislabeled for failing to disclose ascorbic acid and citric acid as preservatives on the label.[xvi] Such FDA enforcement actions, while not legally binding precedents in the way a statute or regulation is, are highly persuasive in a court’s eyes—they show how the primary food safety authority views the ingredient and claim at issue. In addition, the FDA’s public-facing educational materials[xvii] explicitly classify citric acid as a preservative, which plaintiffs can and do cite to bolster their argument that an average consumer would be misled by a “no preservatives” claim. The USDA’s perspective provides a similar reinforcement: although USDA does not regulate pasta sauce, its labeling policy for meat and poultry products defines “natural” as meaning no artificial ingredient or added color and no chemical preservative in the product. [xviii]

This reflects a consistent regulatory ethos—in both FDA and USDA contexts—that the presence of synthetic preservatives is fundamentally at odds with a “preservative-free” or “natural” claim.[xix] In sum, federal administrative guidance and actions serve as a de facto roadmap for what may be considered “deceptive” in labeling, and companies ignore that roadmap at their peril. Plaintiffs will continue to mine these sources (regulations, agency guidance, warning letters) to validate their claims in court, and judges are likely to find such evidence compelling when evaluating whether label wording could mislead consumers.

• • Risk Mitigation Strategies for In-House Counsel and Compliance Teams

In-house counsel and compliance departments in the food and beverage sector should take proactive steps in light of these developments. First, conduct a thorough review of all “free-from” claims (e.g. “no artificial preservatives,” “no synthetic ingredients,” “all natural”) used on product packaging and marketing. Cross-check each claim against the product’s ingredient list. If any additive could arguably fall within the claim’s exclusion (for instance, citric acid in a product marketed as preservative-free), consider reformulating the claim, using an alternative ingredient, or adding clarifying context.

It may be safer to avoid absolute claims like “no artificial preservatives” unless there is confidence they are 100% accurate under both common consumer understanding and regulatory definitions. Where certain additives serve multiple functions (for example, citric acid can stabilize flavor and also inhibit spoilage), assume plaintiffs will characterize them in the manner most damaging to you—i.e. as preservatives—and plan accordingly.

Second, stay abreast of FDA and USDA guidance and enforcement trends. Developments such as FDA warning letters or policy statements should be treated as warning signs for industry. For example, if the FDA has admonished a competitor for “natural” claims on products containing citric or ascorbic acid, treat that as applicable learning for your own labels. In training your marketing and research and development teams, emphasize that administrative precedent matters. Even without a formal regulation on “natural,” the company should err on the side of caution by adhering to the spirit of FDA/USDA guidance.

Third, implement an internal labeling compliance audit process. Before new labels or reformulated products go to market, involve legal/regulatory experts to vet any affirmative claims. It is far more cost-effective to nix or adjust a dubious claim pre-launch than to defend a class action later. Ensure that any “no preservatives” or similar claims can be substantiated—which may include documenting the source and role of each ingredient. If an ingredient like citric acid is present, determine what function it performs in the product and whether it may be a red flag that the claim might be challenged. Some companies choose to include qualifying language or an asterisk on packaging (for example, clarifying that no added preservatives are present, or explaining a particular ingredient’s role), but such measures may not always fend off a lawsuit.  Absolute clarity and truthfulness of the primary claim is the best defense.

Finally, be prepared for the reality that consumer perception drives liability under laws like the UCL and FAL. It is not a defense that an additive is safe or approved; if consumers are likely to interpret “no preservatives” to mean none whatsoever, the presence of even a benign, FDA-approved preservative can trigger liability. The prudent course is to align product labeling with consumer-protective interpretations. Given the proliferation of class actions in this area, companies should weigh the marketing benefit of a “preservative-free” label versus potential litigation exposure. In the current climate, robust internal compliance and a conservative approach to food labeling claims are essential to mitigate legal risk.

Conclusion

The Deforest v. Target case highlights a convergence of factors that compliance-savvy companies must heed: evolving consumer expectations for “clean” labels, aggressive enforcement of labeling laws through private litigation, and the guiding hand of federal regulatory standards in shaping what counts as truthful advertising. Food manufacturers and retailers should treat this as a wake-up call to review their product labels through a legal lens. By proactively managing labeling claims and aligning them with both regulatory guidance and common-sense consumer understanding, companies can better defend against, or altogether avoid, this type of class action. The cost of preventive compliance may well be far less than the cost of defending a false advertising lawsuit—a lesson underscored by the growing body of litigation over something as seemingly humble as citric acid in a jar of pasta sauce.

Keep Reading

Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring From Zero to AI‑Augmented Litigator: My Journey from Avoidance and Fear to Delighted Learner Extraordinary Review: The Life of a Writ in California How I Use the Core Four as the Parent of Teenagers New Laws for The New Year – How To Stay on Santa’s “Good” List in 2026 A Spoonful of Error Makes the Verdict Go Down: The Importance of Contemporaneous Objections

More by this author

From Code to Courtroom: Raine v. OpenAI and the Future of AI Responsibility Collision, Care, and Clarity: California Supreme Court Reins in MICRA’s Statute of Limitations in Ambulance Crash Nickeled, Dimed, and Docketed: The Legal Reckoning for Ticketmaster’s Fee Model Pasta Sauce, Preservatives, and the Price of “Natural”: Target’s Labeling Lands It in Hot Water Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Red Hot Water: Former Chili Pepper Guitarist Sued in Wrongful Death Action

Sources

[i] Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp., Case No. 8:25-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal.).

[ii] Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711–15.

[iii] Complaint ¶9, Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp., No. 8:25-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025).

[iv] Complaint ¶1, Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp., No. 8:25-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025).

[v] Carbine v. Target Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04020 (C.D. Cal. filed May 15, 2024)

[vi] U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Citric Acid; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 40 C.F.R. § 180.1033 (2023); see also FDA, Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives & Colors (Aug. 2020), https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors.

[vii] 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(a)(5) (2024) (“The term chemical preservative means any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof. The term does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure … or those added for flavor.”). See also U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives & Colors (Aug. 2020), https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors (listing citric acid as a commonly used preservative).

[viii] First Amended Class Action Complaint ¶ 3, Carbine v. Target Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04020 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2024).

[ix] See California Business and Professions Code § 17208.

[x] Complaint ¶39, Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp., No. 8:25-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025).

[xi] Carbine v. Target Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04020 (C.D. Cal. filed May 15, 2024).

[xii] Order Denying Motion to Dismiss at 6, Carbine v. Target Corp., No. 2:24-cv-04020 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2025).

[xiii] Id.

[xiv] Wright v. Target Corp., No. 1:24-cv-02711 (E.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 11, 2024).

[xv] U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Use of the Term “Natural” on Food Labeling (Mar. 2022), https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling.

[xvi] Complaint Ex. C, Jennifer Deforest v. Target Corp., No. 8:25-cv-00851 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2025).

[xvii] See U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives & Colors (Aug. 2020), https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors.

[xviii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety & Inspection Service, Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book 158 (Aug. 2005), available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Labeling-Policy-Book.pdf.

[xix] See U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives & Colors (Aug. 2020), https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/overview-food-ingredients-additives-colors; U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Food Safety & Inspection Serv., Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book 158 (Aug. 2005), https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Labeling-Policy-Book.pdf.