Estimated reading time: 9 minutes.
Key facts
- Barbara Mullen sued SF Markets, LLC, doing business as Sprouts Farmers Market, on September 8, 2026. Rhiannon Hood sued Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. on September 17.
- Both complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. They allege that Sprouts-brand chips advertised with avocado-oil claims contain undisclosed oils.
- Mullen challenges one tortilla-chip product and proposes a nationwide class and California subclass. Hood challenges a broader chip line and proposes a California class.
- Both rely on University of California, Davis research. Hood also describes testing commissioned on three unopened potato-chip bags.
- The reviewed documents are complaints, not decisions establishing liability. No settlement, payout, claim deadline or court-approved claim form was verified.
In this article
- Two complaints challenge different Sprouts chip labels
- What the shoppers say they bought
- How researchers tested the oil inside finished foods
- Hood describes additional laboratory testing
- The legal claims focus on labeling and money paid
- The proposed classes are not interchangeable
- What the record establishes and what comes next
- Frequently asked questions
Two complaints challenge different Sprouts chip labels
Two proposed class actions ask a federal court in San Diego to examine whether shoppers received the avocado oil promised on bags of Sprouts-brand chips. Their central allegation concerns the oil used in the chips, not a claim that the entire snack should consist of avocado oil.
In Mullen v. SF Markets, LLC, case 3:26-cv-05070-BJC-DEB, Barbara Mullen challenges Organic Sea Salt & A Hint of Lime Tortilla Chips Made With Avocado Oil. Her September 8 complaint says the front label names avocado oil and the ingredient statement discloses no other edible oil. She argues those statements together tell shoppers that avocado oil is the product's only oil.
Rhiannon Hood's September 17 complaint, Hood v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., case 3:26-cv-05362-RSH-DDL, addresses a broader line of potato and tortilla chips. It emphasizes the wording "Made With 100% Avocado Oil," package images and ingredient lists. Hood also alleges that Sprouts promoted the chips through a "See Ya Later, Seed Oils!" website collection.
The defendants are not identically named. Mullen names SF Markets, LLC, the business she identifies as operating under the Sprouts Farmers Market name, plus unidentified defendants. Hood names Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. Each complaint alleges that its named defendant controlled relevant manufacturing, sourcing, marketing or labeling activities. Those assertions about responsibility remain allegations.
The label dispute concerns the oil The plaintiffs contend that avocado oil should be the only oil used in the challenged chips. They do not allege that a bag of chips should be made entirely of oil.
What the shoppers say they bought
Mullen, a San Diego resident, alleges purchases at a local Sprouts store on or about February 3, March 14 and March 26, 2026, for approximately $4.99 per bag. She says she read both the front label and ingredient statement before purchasing and would not have bought the tortilla chips, or would have paid less, if she had known the oil did not match the representation.
Hood, also a San Diego resident, says she began regularly buying Sprouts avocado-oil chips around August 2025. She alleges purchasing at least 14 bags, including Honey BBQ and Dill Pickle kettle-style potato chips, at approximately $0.60 to $0.67 per ounce.
Hood's product list includes five kettle-style potato-chip flavors: Sea Salt, Honey BBQ, Sour Cream & Onion, Sea Salt & Vinegar, and Dill Pickle. It also names Organic Sea Salt & A Hint Of Lime Tortilla Chips, Organic Sea Salt Blue Corn Tortilla Chips and Organic Unsalted Blue Corn Tortilla Chips made with avocado oil. Her complaint says the list is not exhaustive.
The alleged injury is financial. Both shoppers contend they paid for a premium ingredient they did not receive as represented. These purchase allegations do not establish that either shopper suffered a physical injury, and the lawsuits should not be read as medical advice about different cooking oils.
How researchers tested the oil inside finished foods
Both complaints rely on a 2026 Applied Food Research paper by Natalie Lopez-Alvarez, Xueqi Li, Benjamin Vizgordiski and Selina C. Wang. The UC Davis researchers studied oils recovered from commercial chips, mayonnaise and salad dressings, rather than testing only bottled cooking oil.
The research examined 54 avocado-oil-labeled samples and 20 olive-oil-labeled samples. Researchers bought products in 2025 and 2026 from California stores and online sources and collected separate production lots. Forty-eight of the 54 avocado-oil-labeled samples were classified as compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil. Within the chip category, 26 of 28 samples were inconsistent. Those numbers describe the study's samples, not the percentage of all Sprouts bags sold.
A fatty-acid profile measures the relative amounts of the chemical building blocks of fats. A sterol profile measures another group of compounds present in oils. Comparing both profiles with reference ranges can help distinguish the oil described on a label from other oils. The study extracted the oil from finished foods before analyzing those profiles.
Researchers allowed limited deviations to accommodate natural variation and analytical uncertainty. They also tested laboratory-prepared foods to examine whether processing changed important markers. Their paper reports that key markers remained largely unchanged during laboratory frying and emulsification, the mixing process used to make products such as mayonnaise.
Mullen identifies her tortilla-chip product as study samples 25 and 26 and alleges that both production lots were inconsistent. Hood alleges that the research also identified inconsistent results for Sprouts Sea Salt kettle-style potato chips. The Sprouts-specific identifications here come from the complaints; the study's complete product crosswalk was not separately retrieved for this report.
Hood describes additional laboratory testing
Hood says she sent newly purchased, unopened bags of Sea Salt, Honey BBQ and Dill Pickle potato chips to Isotek Laboratories, LLC, an independent laboratory she identifies in Oklahoma City. According to her complaint, the samples arrived September 8 and certificates of analysis were issued September 11, 2026.
The complaint reports palmitoleic acid measurements ranging from 0.544% to 1.038%, compared with a 4.0% to 17.1% avocado-oil reference range it attributes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international food-standards body. It also reports stearic acid measurements of 2.84% to 3.33%, compared with the cited Codex range of 0.1% to 1.3%.
Those percentages describe fatty-acid measurements, not the percentage of avocado oil in a bag. Hood argues that the combination of unusually low and high markers supports substitution or dilution with other oils. The underlying Isotek certificates were not available in the reviewed complaint copy, so the measurements are reported as Hood's allegations, not independently reproduced test results.
Testing does not identify every bag's composition The study and Hood's additional testing concern particular samples. Whether those results establish the composition of other production lots is a question the lawsuits raise, not a finding this article makes.
The legal claims focus on labeling and money paid
Both complaints invoke three California consumer laws. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act addresses specified deceptive practices in consumer transactions, including alleged misrepresentations about ingredients or quality. California's False Advertising Law addresses untrue or misleading advertising. Its Unfair Competition Law covers unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices.
Mullen additionally alleges breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. An express warranty is a factual promise or description of goods that becomes part of the bargain. She argues the labels supplied such a promise. Her alternative unjust-enrichment claim seeks recovery of money she says the defendant unfairly retained.
The requested remedies differ from established awards. An injunction would require or prohibit conduct, such as using the challenged labeling without an accurate basis. Restitution seeks return of money allegedly obtained through the disputed practice. Damages would compensate a legally proven loss. Neither complaint sets a guaranteed payment for individual shoppers.
There is also a procedural qualification. Mullen's original complaint seeks injunctive relief under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and says additional monetary relief under that law would follow the required notice period and an amendment. Hood's original claim under that law likewise seeks injunctive and equitable relief. Their broader requests for money do not mean every remedy is available under every claim.
The proposed classes are not interchangeable
Mullen proposes a nationwide class of people who purchased her specified tortilla-chip product during the applicable limitations period before filing through class certification, plus a California subclass. A limitations period is the legally permitted time for bringing a claim. The complaint does not supply a single calendar start date for all purchasers.
Hood proposes a class of people in California who purchased Sprouts avocado-oil chip products within the applicable limitations periods. Her proposed period would end with judgment. She excludes purchasers for resale, certain defendant-related parties, the assigned judge and immediate family, and people who timely elect exclusion.
Both plaintiffs ask for class certification, the court's decision about whether a representative may pursue claims for a defined group. Filing a complaint does not itself certify that group or establish an individual shopper's entitlement to relief.
What the record establishes and what comes next
The filing stamps establish when the two complaints were filed. The papers establish what the plaintiffs allege and request. They do not establish that Sprouts knowingly substituted oils, that every listed flavor was tested, or that all batches contain the same composition.
A public docket index retrieved October 12 lists an October 8 order in Mullen, entry 8, granting a joint request to extend SF Markets, LLC's time to respond and set a briefing schedule. The order itself was not available for this report, so the new deadlines were not independently verified. That procedural entry is not a decision on the labeling allegations.
For Hood, the public index retrieved October 12 lists the September 17 complaint and summons. A complete current docket was not available, so later proceedings have not been ruled out. A limited index should not be treated as proof that the case has remained unchanged.
This report did not obtain a Sprouts answer, a merits ruling, a class-certification order or an approved settlement. The company's litigation position and any additional orders remain unverified. The next reporting steps are to obtain the actual Mullen scheduling order and fuller dockets for both cases, the study's product crosswalk, and Hood's underlying laboratory records.
No verified claims window The reviewed record supplies no court-approved settlement claim form or payment deadline. A proposed class definition is not a promise that a purchaser qualifies for money.
Frequently asked questions
What are the two Sprouts avocado-oil chip lawsuits?
They are Mullen v. SF Markets, LLC and Hood v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., filed September 8 and September 17, 2026, respectively, in the Southern District of California. Both allege misleading avocado-oil labeling.
Which chips does Mullen's complaint challenge?
It challenges Sprouts Organic Sea Salt & A Hint of Lime Tortilla Chips Made With Avocado Oil. Hood's separate complaint addresses a broader potato- and tortilla-chip line.
Does the 93% study result apply to all Sprouts chips?
No. It describes the tested avocado-oil chip samples across the research sample. It is not a measurement of every Sprouts product or bag sold.
Has a court decided that Sprouts mislabeled the chips?
No such ruling was obtained for this report. The reviewed complaints present allegations and requested relief, not findings establishing wrongdoing.
Who do the plaintiffs want to represent?
Mullen proposes nationwide purchasers of her specified product and a California subclass. Hood proposes California purchasers of Sprouts avocado-oil chip products, subject to her proposed exclusions and limitations period.
Is there a settlement payment or claim deadline?
Neither was verified in the reviewed materials. The plaintiffs request relief, but no individual payout, claim deadline or official settlement claims process is established by these complaints.