An Israeli court has approved a class-action lawsuit seeking 350 million shekels ($116 million) against Anita Gelato Ltd., which operates the Golda and Anita ice cream brands, over claims that products marketed as “sugar-free” contained substantial amounts of sugar.

The Central District Court in Lod found sufficient grounds to examine allegations that consumers could have understood the “sugar-free” labeling to mean that the products contained no sugar, rather than simply no added sugar.

Golda, one of Israel’s largest ice cream chains, has more than 100 locations across the country.

The ruling does not determine whether the company violated the law. That question will be examined in the class-action proceedings.

The case centers on Golda’s hazelnut and coffee flavors. Plaintiff Sol Yarkoni commissioned laboratory testing after purchasing about half a kilogram (1.1 pounds) of the ice cream from a Golda branch in January 2024.

According to test results submitted to the court, the products contained about 6.6 grams of lactose per 100 grams. Lactose is a naturally occurring sugar found in milk. Israeli regulations cited in the case set a maximum of 0.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams for products labeled “sugar-free.”

Yarkoni, who said she avoids sugar for health and dietary reasons, told the court that she suspected after eating the ice cream that it contained sugar. She subsequently sent samples to a Health Ministry-approved laboratory for analysis. The reported lactose content was more than 13 times the threshold cited in the case.

The lawsuit covers consumers who purchased products marketed as “sugar-free” from Golda and Anita over a seven-year period. Yarkoni is seeking refunds for affected customers as well as compensation of up to 300 shekels ($100) per class member.

The claim also alleges that the tested products contained polyol-based sugar substitutes that were not adequately disclosed to consumers.

In its defense, Anita Gelato Ltd. challenged Yarkoni’s credibility and motives, arguing that she appeared to have anticipated legal action when she purchased the ice cream. The company cited, among other things, the fact that she photographed her receipt immediately after the purchase.

The company also argued that consumers understand that milk-based ice cream naturally contains lactose and that “sugar-free” therefore means that no additional sugar has been added.

Judge Iris Rabinovitch-Brun rejected that argument at this stage of the proceedings, finding that there was reason to believe that sugar content would be a material consideration for consumers purchasing ice cream specifically labeled “sugar-free.” The judge also found grounds to conclude that the product may have been purchased and consumed under the impression that it was sugar-free.

The court further questioned why the chain could not have used wording such as “no added sugar” if that was what it intended to communicate.

The class action will examine whether Golda breached consumer-protection and labeling laws, violated applicable standards or statutory duties, or was negligent or unjustly enriched. The court will also consider whether the company was required to provide clearer information about the products’ sugar content and other ingredients.

An expert opinion submitted by Yarkoni said that consuming ice cream containing sugar could pose health concerns for people with diabetes. The opinion further stated that products containing the level of lactose identified in the testing would likely not have met criteria associated with “sugar-free” labeling by the Israel Diabetes Association.

Anita Gelato Ltd. said it had removed the products as a precaution while rejecting the allegations. JNS