In the meat and poultry sector, recalls have always been part of doing business. Whether triggered by pathogen contamination, misbranding, or undeclared allergens, companies are well-practiced at notifying regulators, pulling affected product, and reassuring customers.  In recent years, however, another layer of risk has emerged: the class action lawsuit that follows the recall announcement.

A year ago, we wrote about the specter of class action food safety lawsuits on the horizon. In the year that followed, there have been numerous additional class action lawsuits asserted against food companies recalling products. While, historically, most post-recall litigation involved personal injury claims tied to confirmed illnesses, plaintiffs’ firms are now increasingly filing no injury class actions, in which the named plaintiffs allege economic harm – such as overpayment for an “unsafe” product – without ever becoming ill. These cases often hinge on the argument that, by purchasing a recalled product, consumers were deprived of the full value they expected. The most common legal theories are breach of express and implied warranties, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and misrepresentation. 

Federal courts have taken varying approaches to these lawsuits.  Some judges dismiss them early, finding that plaintiffs lack standing when they cannot show actual injury or that the product was unusable. Others allow claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, especially when plaintiffs allege that they discarded a purchased product due to safety concerns.  While our firm has had success seeing a number of class actions dismissed, even when there is a dismissal, the legal fees, management distraction, and reputational harm can be substantial.

Certain factors make a class action more likely. Recalls involving high-profile pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7, or Salmonella tend to draw greater scrutiny, particularly when they involve large distribution footprints or nationally recognized brands.  Widespread media coverage and viral social media posts can amplify the visibility of a recall and put it on the radar of class action firms that actively monitor USDA and FDA recall postings. 

For processors, minimizing exposure requires careful preparation and disciplined execution. Recall notices should be precise and factual, avoiding sweeping language that could be construed as evidence of negligence or systemic safety failures. Documentation of preventive measures and food safety program diligence should be kept in order and readily accessible. Involving legal counsel early in the process can help ensure that press releases, customer letters, and public statements strike the right balance between transparency and risk management. It is also important that recall team members understand that even well-intentioned statements can have unintended legal consequences.

Given the ease of filing class action lawsuits and the publicity that often surrounds a recall, this trend is unlikely to fade. In fact, the coming year may see more “copycat” filings in multiple jurisdictions, where the same recall prompts suits in several states.  The new and confirmed reality for processors is that a recall today is no longer just a food safety and regulatory event – rather, it is also a potential litigation trigger. Those who prepare for that reality in the near-term, will be in the best position to limit both the commercial and legal fallout when the next recall occurs.