ZURICH, Nov 13 — Top Swiss chocolatier Lindt & Sprungli is disputing claims brought by US consumers in a class action lawsuit concerning the levels of heavy metals found in its chocolate bars.

Lindt has unsuccessfully attempted to end a class action lawsuit in the United States, launched in February 2023, following an article by a US consumer association questioning the presence of heavy metals in dark chocolate bars from several manufacturers, including two bars produced by Lindt.

“Lindt & Sprungli disagrees with all the allegations made in the US lawsuit,” the firm told AFP in a statement late on Monday night.

“Our Lindt & Sprungli quality and safety procedures ensure that all products comply with all applicable safety standards and declaration requirements and are safe to consume,” it added.

Consumers in the US states of Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada and New York had taken legal action on the back of a 2022 article by the US consumer organisation Consumer Reports, concerning the levels of lead and cadmium in dark chocolate bars.

The organisation tested 28 bars sold in the United States. One of the Lindt bars was among eight found to have a high level of cadmium, while another was among 10 with a high level of lead, though neither had the highest levels.

Two of its bars, marketed under the US brand Ghirardelli, were among the five classified as “safer choices”.

While bars from other manufacturers had higher concentrations of heavy metals — including organic brands — consumers insisted in the class action lawsuit that they had paid premium prices for Lindt because they believed they were “purchasing quality and safe dark chocolate”.

They accused Lindt of having violated the labelling rules in force in their states.

The Eastern District of New York district court denied Lindt’s motion to have the lawsuit dismissed.

‘Puffery’ argument

The chocolatier’s lawyers maintained that the words printed on its packaging — “excellence” and “expertly crafted with the finest ingredients” — were unactionable “puffery”.

The court decision outlined product puffery as “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely”.

The line of defence startled some newspapers in a country highly attached to the prestige image of its goods, with Switzerland’s NZZ am Sonntag weekly saying Lindt’s strategy had “dismantled its own promises of quality”.

Lindt, however, stressed that the use of a “puffery argument” was a “technical” legal response before a US court and not an admission of inferior quality products.

That argument, Lindt told AFP in a statement, was merely “used to clarify that an advertising challenged by plaintiffs is not sufficiently objective to support the specific false advertising claim being made”.

But nonetheless, it insisted that it stood by its claims of “excellence” and products “expertly crafted with the finest ingredients”.

“Our consumers can have full confidence in that,” said Lindt. — AFP