Siete avocado oil chips lawsuit (Wilson and Ali v. Garza Food Ventures)

Two proposed class actions filed on October 22 and October 23, 2026, accuse Siete Family Foods and its owner, PepsiCo, of selling chips labeled "made with avocado oil" that contain cheaper oils. The suits target Siete's Maiz Sea Salt Corn Tortilla Chips Made with Avocado Oil and its Kettle Cooked Sea Salt Potato Chips Made with Avocado Oil. Both rely on a University of California, Davis study published in July 2026.

This page tracks both lawsuits. They are at the very start. No court has ruled on the claims, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form.

The defendants are Garza Food Ventures, LLC, which does business as Siete Family Foods, and PepsiCo, Inc. The complaints describe Garza Food Ventures as a Texas company based in Austin. PepsiCo's January 17, 2025 announcement says it completed its purchase of Siete for $1.2 billion. The same release says the Garza family founded Siete in Austin in 2014 and that its products are sold at more than 40,000 retailers.

The plaintiffs are shoppers who say they bought the chips.

• Wilson case: Tiffany Wilson of Wauconda, Illinois, says she bought the Maiz corn tortilla chips at Woodman's Market in Lakemoor, Illinois, including on April 14, 2025. Her lawyers are from KalielGold PLLC and Jennings & Earley PLLC.
• Ali case: Azizah Ali of Los Angeles says she bought the corn tortilla chips, and Shahayra Roy of Queens, New York, says she bought the potato chips. Their lawyers are from Kuzyk Law LLP and Denlea & Carton LLP.

The complaints say both chips list avocado oil as the only oil in the ingredient statement, and that the front of each bag says "made with avocado oil."

On July 15, 2026, UC Davis announced a study in the journal Applied Food Research. Researchers bought processed foods marketed as containing avocado oil in 2025 and 2026 from online retailers and California stores. They tested each product's fatty acids and sterols, which work like chemical fingerprints for different oils. The university reported these results:

• 48 of 54 avocado oil labeled products did not match authentic avocado oil.
• That included 93% of chips, 71% of mayonnaises and 100% of salad dressings tested.
• Only 1 of 20 olive oil labeled products failed the same tests.
• Researchers allowed a 10% margin for natural variation and still found failures.

The university's announcement does not name brands. Both complaints say the study's published data identifies Siete products among those that did not match authentic avocado oil. The Wilson complaint says the results were consistent with lower cost oils such as canola, corn, soybean or sunflower oil.

On August 20, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation of avocado oil marketing. His office said it sent civil investigative demands to Primal Kitchen, Siete Foods and Chosen Foods under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. That investigation is separate from the private lawsuits, and it has not produced any finding.

The plaintiffs say Siete and PepsiCo misled buyers who paid more for avocado oil because they wanted to avoid other oils. These are accusations, not proven facts.

• Wilson complaint: It claims breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of two Illinois consumer laws, the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
• Ali complaint: It claims violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and negligent misrepresentation.

Class Action Pulse did not find a public statement from Siete or PepsiCo about the lawsuits or the study. Neither company had filed a response in either court when this page was written.

One point from the study's own author matters here. UC Davis professor Selina Wang said brands whose products failed may not know they are using adulterated oil, because many buy oil through brokers or several suppliers. She said the problem likely starts with oil suppliers, while adding that food companies could do more to verify what they buy. Food Dive reported the same supplier point when it covered the Texas investigation.

Nothing has been decided. The Wilson case is No. 1:26-cv-13028 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (docket). The Ali case is No. 2:26-cv-12409 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (docket). The docket data Class Action Pulse reviewed did not show a judge assignment for either case.

A judge has not decided whether the labels are misleading, whether the study's results apply to the chips the plaintiffs bought, or whether either case can proceed as a class action.

The complaints propose these classes. A court could narrow or reject them.

• Wilson nationwide class: people in the United States who bought the products for personal use within the legal time limit, plus an Illinois subclass.
• Ali nationwide class: all natural persons who bought the products in the United States, plus New York and California subclasses.

Both complaints exclude the companies, their affiliates and the judges on the case, among others. If you bought either Siete avocado oil chip in the United States, you may fall within a proposed class. You do not need to sign up for anything to stay a potential class member.

• Keep receipts, online order history or store loyalty records showing Siete chip purchases.
• If you still have a bag, photograph the front label and the ingredient list.
• Note roughly when and where you bought the chips and how often.
• Watch for an official court notice. A real notice would come from a court approved administrator, not from a random text or social media ad.
• Do not pay anyone to "join" a class action. Joining a certified class or filing a settlement claim is free.
• Talk to a lawyer of your choice if you have questions about your own situation.

Nothing is available now. The Wilson complaint asks for restitution, actual damages and an order stopping the challenged marketing. The Ali complaint asks for damages, including statutory and treble damages where the law allows them, along with court orders about the marketing. Those are requests. Any money would depend on the plaintiffs winning or the companies agreeing to settle, and a court would have to approve any settlement.

• January 17, 2025: PepsiCo completes its purchase of Siete.
• April 14, 2025: one purchase date Wilson lists for the Maiz chips.
• July 15, 2026: UC Davis announces the avocado oil study.
• August 20, 2026: Texas Attorney General announces an investigation that includes Siete Foods.
• October 22, 2026: Wilson v. Garza Food Ventures filed in Illinois federal court.
• October 23, 2026: Ali v. Garza Food Ventures filed in California federal court.

There is no claim deadline because there is no settlement. Time limits for consumer claims vary by state and legal theory.

• Proposed class action: a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group that a judge has not yet approved as a class.
• Class certification: a court ruling that a case can go forward on behalf of everyone in a defined group.
• Adulterated oil: oil sold as one kind that is mixed with other, often cheaper, oils.
• Fatty acid and sterol profile: the mix of natural compounds in an oil, used to check whether it is what the label says.
• Express warranty: a specific promise about a product, such as a label statement, that a seller can be held to.
• Unjust enrichment: a claim that a company kept money it should not fairly keep.
• Civil investigative demand: a formal request from a government agency for documents or answers before any lawsuit.

The companies will have time to respond to each complaint, often with a motion to dismiss. Because the cases cover the same products, they could be combined or moved to one court. The Texas investigation may continue on its own track.

Siete is not the only brand facing these claims. Class Action Pulse has covered similar lawsuits over Sprouts avocado oil chips. This page will be updated when either court rules or a settlement is announced.

The case facts come from the two filed complaints (Wilson and Ali). Study results come from UC Davis, and acquisition facts come from PepsiCo. Claims that the study found Siete products inconsistent with avocado oil are the plaintiffs' reading of the study. No court or regulator has found that Siete chips were mislabeled. Judge assignments and any defense response were not available.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.