StarKist Underfilled Tuna Cans Class Action

StarKist is again in the news as the company famous for its tuna is now involved with yet another class action lawsuit. The latest filing comes following allegations that the fish provider underfills its 12-ounce cans. It was only recently that StarKist paid $12 million to settle a similar class action suit surrounding actions that caused their buyers to overpay for underfilled cans of tuna. The latest claims stem from plaintiff Donald Pluckett  who claims that StarKist Co. regularly shorts customers for various tuna products. Some of the more notable products include: Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water, Chunk Light Tuna in Water, Solid White Albacore Tuna in Vegetable Oil, and Chunk Light Tuna in Vegetable Oil.

There is no argument against the idea that StarKist does not serve 12 ounces of tuna. The company labels the products as containing nine ounces of fish in the referred can in a cake form. Basis for the class action suit comes following independent testing which produces results showing the company offers well less than the listed nine ounces. These studies were called upon after the aforementioned lawsuit for StarKist was focused around the company’s five ounce options.

Puckett contends that the FDA’s standard regulations yielded clear results that the amounts tested were under the required yield. The StarKist class action cites FDA regulations, simply stating “Packages and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons.”

The suit is still in the early stages and no apparent settlement appears in site at the moment. Puckett wishes to represent consumers across the nations who have purchased StarKist products in addition to a subclass based in Oregon. Claiming that StarKist has committed fraud, he points to a potential violation in the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Puckett is asking for a court order to prevent the company from selling the allegedly mislabeled products. His initial contention is only that the current practice ends. If there is no stoppage in 30 days, he will actively pursue damages and fair reparations from the company.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *