Court Snuffs Out Deceptive Advertising Claims Over “Smokehouse” Almonds

Posted: July 24, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Motion to Dismiss, Fraud/Misrepresentation, Commercial

Court Snuffs Out Deceptive Advertising Claims Over “Smokehouse” Almonds

On July 10, 2026, in O’Connor v. Blue Diamond Growers, Index No. 160511/2025, Justice Andrea Masley of the New York County Commercial Division granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff Leela O’Connor brought claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, alleging that Blue Diamond’s Smokehouse Almonds are misbranded because the front label’s use of “smokehouse” implies the almonds were smoked over wood, when their smoked taste actually comes from “Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor,” a liquid smoke flavoring disclosed in the ingredient list. Blue Diamond moved to dismiss, arguing that O’Connor failed to plead materially misleading conduct, injury, and causation. The court agreed on all three grounds. On the misleading-conduct element, the court held that reasonable consumers understand “smoked” to describe a flavor rather than a manufacturing process, drawing on a line of cases treating “vanilla” the same way, and noted that the label never claims the almonds were made in an actual smokehouse. The court separately found that O’Connor’s allegation of a five-to-seventy-cent “price premium” was conclusory absent any comparator product, and that a claim she would not have purchased the almonds at all does not state a cognizable injury under New York law. On the central misleading-conduct issue, the court explained:

Like vanilla, reasonable consumers associated the word “smoked” with a flavor. Moreover, the label on Blue Diamond’s almonds does not claim that the almonds are manufactured in a smokehouse or by burning hardwood. To the extent the word “smokehouse” on the front label may create an ambiguity as to the manufacturing process, “the back label provides sufficient clarification.” Courts faced with similar lawsuits against Blue Diamond have also found that because “the use of the term ‘Smokehouse’ is qualified by a trademark symbol” plaintiff fails to allege that “a reasonable consumer would likely be deceived into believing that [the almonds] were smoked in a smokehouse.” . . . For these reasons, the court finds that O’Connor fails to plead that the label on Blue Diamond’s Smokehouse Almonds is materially misleading. (citations omitted)

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive practices or false advertising.

To read more about deceptive-practices and false-advertising claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, see Schlam Stone & Dolan’s related Commercial Division Blog posts on a decision holding that alleged deception among jewelry wholesalers stated a Section 349 claim because it ultimately harmed the public and a decision holding that a Section 349 claim should not have been dismissed where the defendants’ marketing was alleged to have misled the public.