Starkist named in class action lawsuit for allegedly under filling cans of tuna

Starkist

This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of 5-ounce cans of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water, 5-ounce cans of StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water, 5-ounce cans of StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Vegetable Oil, and 5-ounce cans of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Vegetable Oil (collectively, “StarKist Tuna”).

Plaintiff purchased one or more 5-ounce cans of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water, which were under-filled and thus substantially underweight. Independent testing by a laboratory retained by Plaintiff’s counsel determined that 5-ounce cans of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water contain an average of only 2.35 ounces of pressed cake tuna when measured precisely according to the methods specified by 21 C.F.R. 161.190(c). This is 17.3% below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 2.84 ounces for these cans. See 21 C.F.R. 161.190(c)(2)(i)-(xii). StarKist is cheating purchasers by providing 17.3% less tuna than purchasers are paying for.

The same laboratory tests revealed that 5-ounce cans of StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water contain an average of only 3.01 ounces of pressed cake tuna, which is 6.8% below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 3.23 ounces for these cans.  These tests also revealed that 5-ounce cans of StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Vegetable Oil contain an average of only 3.11 ounces of pressed cake tuna, which is 3.7% below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 3.23 ounces for these cans.

Finally, these tests revealed that 5-ounce cans of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Vegetable Oil contain an average of only 2.81 ounces of pressed cake tuna, which is 1.1% below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 2.84 ounces for these cans.

Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and a nationwide class of purchasers of StarKist Tuna, for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), violation of the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”), negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.


Nancy C. said
451 days ago
I am certainly among those who have been shorted on the amount of tuna in the can. Glad to see this suit.


Lucinda B. said
187 days ago
I bought 3 cases of this tuna and have same issue with very little tuna left after draining water. Is this class action still open?

Submit a Response Are you having the same issue? Do you have a solution? Either way, chime in!

I would like to speak with a lawyer about my legal rights in this matter.

I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions.

Contact A Lawyer Privately

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.