Nutella settles lawsuit. You can get $20.

Nutella settles lawsuit over false advertising claims. Because the maker of Nutella settles lawsuit, it agrees to set up a $3 million settlement fund to repay customers up to $4 a jar.

Dado Ruvic/Reuters/File
Nutella produced in Italy is displayed for sale at an FIS supermarket in Vitez, Bosnia, last month. The company has international operations. Because the maker of Nutella settles lawsuit in the United States over false advertising claims, American customers can apply for up to $20 in reimbursement.

The headline that caught my eye – "Nutella settles lawsuit" – took me back instantly to memories of slathering the product on real French bread. It was convenient. You spread it on like peanut butter, but it tasted so much better: chocolate with just the right essence of hazelnut. 

Back then, it was touted as an after-school treat for European kids and hard to find in the United States. Now, it's marketed increasingly for breakfast for American children. That's what got its maker, Italy's Ferrero Group (which also makes Ferrero Chocolates and Tic Tacs), into trouble with US courts.

Advertised as a way to get children to eat a healthy breakfast, Ferrero was insinuating that Nutella was healthy when, in fact, it has about as much nutritional value as a candy bar. Or so claimed several consumers, who sued the company's US unit.

As part of its settlement of two class-action suits, Ferrero U.S.A. Inc. is offering to reimburse consumers for up to five jars (at $4 a jar). Since it doesn't appear you need any receipts, it's one of the easiest $20 you can make. You can apply here.
Your actual reward could amount to less than $20, because so many people may apply for the $3.05 million available. But I'm not sure I'll be one of those people. 

Our family is certainly entitled to the money. My daughter has become a big fan, so we bought far more than five jars of Nutella between the court-specified period of Jan. 1, 2008, to Feb. 3, 2012 (Aug. 1, 2009, to Jan. 23, 2012. for those in California, where one of the suits was filed).

And while we were never duped into thinking Nutella was health food, some food companies are so cavalier about enhancing the appeal of their products with words like "natural" that maybe Ferrero deserves to be made to pay. Call it social justice. Or punitive damages.

But here's the thing: Ferrero doesn't appear to be a rapacious megacorporation. It looks to be run like a conscientious family-run business. 

The company issued its first social responsibility report two years before the first lawsuits were filed. This year it stopped advertising to audiences where more than half of the viewers or readers are under 12; next year, no more than 35 percent of the audience can be under 12. It has started a training program with USAID for hazelnut growers in the country of Georgia. Last year, one of its two managing directors (and a grandson of the founder) died during a humanitarian mission to South Africa. By 2020, the company aims to supply all its cocoa, palm oil, and coffee from sustainable farms.

These are not the moves of a company with a single-minded focus on the bottom line.

And the ads that helped convince several judges there was a case against Ferrero? Here's the transcript of one TV ad from court documents:

"[MOM]: As a mom, I’m a great believer in Nutella, a delicious hazelnut spread that I use to get mykids to eat healthy foods. I spread a little on all kinds of healthy things, like multigrain toast. Everyjar has wholesome, quality ingredients, like hazelnuts, skim milk, and a hint of delicious cocoa. AndNutella has no artificial colors or preservatives. It’s quick, it’s easy, and at breakfast I can use all thehelp I can get.
[VOICEOVER]: Nutella—breakfast never tasted this good."

Does that qualify as deception? You be the judge. I'm not applying for the money.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.