Lindt’s ads are instantly recognisable. They always feature a master chocolatier sporting a branded chef’s hat, a slow-motion sequence of melted chocolate being poured into a mould and a beautiful woman enjoying the finished product.

All aspects play up the premium quality of Lindt’s chocolate, which is why it was particularly surprising when the brand scuppered its own marketing claims about the excellence of its products in a US court last week.

The Swiss chocolate giant is currently embroiled in a class action lawsuit filed by US consumers over alleged heavy metals found in its dark chocolate bars.

Filed in February 2023, the lawsuit followed a 2022 Consumer Reports investigation in which 28 bars sold in the US were tested for heavy metals (lead and cadmium, to be precise).

The investigation found Lindt’s Excellence 70% Dark bar contained cadmium levels at 116% of California’s maximum allowable dose level (MADL). Tests also showed that its Excellence 85% Dark bar contained lead levels that were 166% of the maximum allowable dose level.

The lawsuit alleges Lindt “deceptively marketed their dark chocolate bars as ‘expertly crafted with the finest ingredients’ … when the bars contained significant amounts of lead”. However, Lindt’s lawyers last week argued that the words “excellence” and “expertly crafted with the finest ingredients”, printed on its bars, were unactionable “puffery”.

The court, which defined puffery as “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely”, dismissed Lindt’s motion. However, Lindt’s risky defence strategy raised more than a few eyebrows.

Lindt’s ‘daring defence’

Swiss newspaper Le Temps said Lindt was “walking a tightrope” with its “daring defence”. Meanwhile, food and fmcg insiders took to LinkedIn to raise their concerns about the case.

Consumer Reports’ findings were “concerning”, wrote Raffles Dubai hygiene and sustainability manager Lara Salloum. “Should we call this eyewashing?” asked Colgate-Palmolive chemical regulations manager Rajiv Mishra. “That’s why it is important to take quality seriously and take care of citizens’ health, who trust brands, sometimes even blindly,” he continued.

The court’s decision to dismiss Lindt’s’ defence indicates it is aligned with Mishra’s stance. It’s probably fair to assume that it wouldn’t occur to most consumers that their favourite chocolate bar might contain unsafe levels of heavy metals – particularly one which features the word ‘excellence’ so prominently.

Lindt has – rightfully – been under scrutiny amid the court case. However, it’s worth remembering Consumer Reports’ 2022 investigation called out several other high-profile brands. Of 28 dark chocolate bars tested, 23 were found to contain concerning levels of heavy metals.

Tony’s Chocolonely Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa, for instance, was found to contain 134% of California’s maximum allowed lead dose. Green & Black’s Organic Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao, meanwhile, was found to contain 143% of the maximum allowed lead dose and 181% of the maximum allowed cadmium dose. Also on the list of offenders were Lily’s, Godiva, Chocolove, Endangered Species, Trader Joe’s, Hue, Hershey’s and Theo.

But while the brands involved try to deal with this potential PR nightmare, they have other problems with which to contend. In a bid to mitigate the impact of the elevated cost of cocoa, many manufacturers are being forced to increase their prices. Lindt’s Excellence bars, for instance, rose in price by 20% from £2.50 to £3 in Morrisons this month, as reported by The Grocer [Assosia 19 October vs 19 November 2024].

Asking shoppers to pay more for a product that is potentially unsafe - while also denying its ‘excellence’ - is certainly a hard sell.

Topics