Carey & Danis LLC has filed suit over Primal Kitchen avocado oil products and is investigating other brands whose products a UC Davis study found compositionally inconsistent with authentic avocado oil.
Start Your Free Case Review →● Lawsuit Filed / Investigation Ongoing
Class Action
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primal Nutrition, LLC, maker of the Primal Kitchen® brand, alleging that three of its avocado-oil-labeled products — Real Mayonnaise Made with Avocado Oil, Avocado Oil and Vinegar Vinaigrette & Marinade, and Italian Dressing & Marinade Made with Avocado Oil — are not chemically consistent with authentic avocado oil, despite avocado oil being listed as the sole declared oil ingredient on the label. The case, Hood, et al. v. Primal Nutrition, LLC, was filed August 18, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:26-cv-09177) by Carey & Danis LLC and Eagan Law Corporation. You can read the full complaint here. The firm is also actively investigating additional avocado-oil brands identified in the same study.
In July 2026, food scientists at the University of California, Davis published a peer-reviewed study examining whether processed foods labeled as containing avocado oil actually contain the compositional profile of authentic avocado oil. You can read the full UC Davis study here. Researchers extracted the oil fraction from 74 commercial chips, mayonnaises, and salad dressings and measured fatty acid and sterol markers against the internationally recognized Codex Alimentarius standard for authentic avocado oil.
The results were striking: 89% of all avocado-oil-labeled products tested — 48 of 54 samples — showed a chemical signature inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, and instead consistent with substitution or dilution using cheaper seed oils. By category, the study found 93% of avocado-oil chips, 100% of avocado-oil salad dressings, and 71% of avocado-oil mayonnaise samples failed to match an authentic profile. By contrast, olive-oil-labeled products in the same categories were overwhelmingly consistent with authentic olive oil, ruling out testing artifacts or ordinary processing as an explanation.
The study independently tested two separately purchased production lots each of three Primal Kitchen products, for a total of six samples. According to the complaint, every one of those six samples fell outside the Codex compositional ranges on nine to eleven separate fatty acid and sterol markers simultaneously — far beyond the study’s own generous 10% tolerance allowance. The complaint alleges the deviations followed an identical pattern across all six samples: depressed palmitoleic acid and cis-vaccenic acid, alongside elevated stearic acid, campesterol, stigmasterol, and Δ⁷-stigmastenol — a signature the study’s authors associate with dilution by lower-cost seed oils, not authentic avocado oil.
The study also tested whether ordinary manufacturing — frying or emulsifying — could explain the deviations. It found that typical processing changes fatty acid markers by well under one percentage point, far too small to account for the magnitude of what was measured in the commercial Primal Kitchen samples. The complaint alleges this rules out an innocent, processing-related explanation.
The complaint further alleges that Primal Kitchen’s marketing reinforces the avocado-oil representation beyond the ingredient label itself — including a “Pure Avocado Oil Promise” on the company’s website, an explicit “NO SOY or CANOLA” claim printed on product packaging, and public statements from Primal Kitchen’s president and founder, made after the study’s publication, continuing to describe the products as made with “100% pure avocado oil” never blended with seed oils.
Primal Kitchen’s products were only three of the 54 avocado-oil-labeled samples the UC Davis study tested. Carey & Danis LLC has filed suit against Primal Nutrition, LLC and is continuing to investigate other manufacturers whose avocado-oil-labeled products showed similar compositional deviations. Applying the same Codex-based compositional analysis the study used, the firm has reviewed the study’s underlying supplementary testing data for every sample and identified numerous other brands whose products also showed multiple, concordant compositional deviations consistent with seed-oil substitution or dilution — in some cases across both independently tested production lots. Products under investigation include, among others:
Two additional products — Lesser Evil Moonions Made with Organic Avocado Oil and Simply Tostitos Sea Salt & Avocado Oil Tortilla Chips — were consistent with authentic avocado oil in one tested production lot but inconsistent in the other.
If you purchased any of the products listed above, or another avocado-oil-labeled dressing, mayonnaise, or chip product not listed here, we encourage you to contact us for a free case evaluation. This list reflects the firm’s ongoing investigation and may be updated as additional testing and legal review is completed.
The filed lawsuit is brought on behalf of a proposed Nationwide Class of everyone in the United States who purchased Primal Kitchen’s Real Mayonnaise Made with Avocado Oil, Avocado Oil and Vinegar Vinaigrette & Marinade, or Italian Dressing & Marinade Made with Avocado Oil, and a California Subclass of Class members who purchased those products in California. If you bought any of these three products, you are potentially eligible for the filed case.
Carey & Danis LLC is also currently investigating whether other avocado-oil-labeled products in the Primal Kitchen line — including its Ranch, Caesar, Green Goddess, Poppy Seed, Buffalo Sauce, and Creamy Sriracha dressings and sauces — share the same sourcing and formulation practices as the tested products, even though those specific products were not among the samples analyzed by the UC Davis study. Separately, and as described above, the firm is investigating potential claims against the other manufacturers whose products were identified as compositionally inconsistent. If you purchased an avocado-oil-labeled dressing, mayonnaise, or chip product from any brand and believe it may not have contained authentic avocado oil, we want to hear from you.
The filed lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, restitution, and disgorgement of the price premium consumers paid for products marketed as containing authentic avocado oil, along with punitive damages where permitted, injunctive relief requiring accurate labeling and independent ongoing testing, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Consumers of the other investigated brands may be entitled to similar recovery once claims are filed. There is no fee unless we win, and a case evaluation is always free.
⚠ Time-Sensitive: Deadlines Apply
Statutes of limitations vary by state and case type. If you believe you have a claim,
do not wait — contact Carey Danis & Lowe today for a free, no-obligation
case evaluation. There is no fee unless we win.
What did the UC Davis study find about avocado oil products?
The study found that 89% of processed foods labeled as containing avocado oil as the sole oil ingredient — including chips, mayonnaise, and salad dressings from numerous brands — showed chemical markers inconsistent with authentic avocado oil, suggesting substitution or dilution with cheaper seed oils.
Which Primal Kitchen products were tested and found inconsistent?
The study tested Primal Kitchen’s Real Mayonnaise Made with Avocado Oil, Avocado Oil and Vinegar Vinaigrette & Marinade, and Italian Dressing & Marinade Made with Avocado Oil. Both independently purchased production lots of all three products failed to match the compositional profile of authentic avocado oil.
What other brands are under investigation besides Primal Kitchen?
Based on the study’s underlying testing data, the firm is investigating avocado-oil-labeled products from brands including Boulder Canyon, Siete, Kettle Brand, Jackson’s, Sprouts, Sensible Portions, Bettergoods, Good Health, Chosen Foods, Briannas, Sir Kensington’s, and BetterBody Foods, among others. A full list is set out above.
Has a lawsuit actually been filed, or is this just an investigation?
Carey & Danis LLC has filed a class action complaint against Primal Nutrition, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-09177. The firm continues to investigate potential claims against the other manufacturers identified above.
Do I need to have kept my receipt to participate?
No. While proof of purchase can be helpful, many consumers can still participate based on their recollection of the products purchased and approximate purchase dates.
What if I bought a product that wasn’t specifically tested by the study?
You may still have a claim. The firm is investigating whether other avocado-oil-labeled products from the same brands and product lines share the same sourcing and formulation as the tested products. Contact us to discuss your specific purchase.
Is there a cost to speak with an attorney about this case?
No. Case evaluations are free, and there is no fee unless Carey & Danis LLC recovers compensation on your behalf.
How is “authentic avocado oil” determined scientifically?
Researchers measure fatty acid and sterol markers in the extracted oil and compare them against the internationally recognized Codex Alimentarius compositional standard for named vegetable oils, which accounts for natural variation in genuine avocado oil.
Carey & Danis LLC, together with Eagan Law Corporation, has built this case around independent, peer-reviewed laboratory data rather than anecdotal claims, and has already taken the step of filing suit rather than merely soliciting inquiries. Our attorneys handle complex consumer protection and class action litigation nationwide, and we are committed to holding food manufacturers accountable when what’s on the label doesn’t match what’s in the bottle — whether that manufacturer is Primal Kitchen or another brand identified in our ongoing investigation.
Source: Class Action Complaint, Hood, et al. v. Primal Nutrition, LLC (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 18, 2026); Lopez-Alvarez, et al., Applied Food Research (2026), including Supplementary Tables S1, S3, and S4. This post is based on publicly available information, the referenced complaint, and the firm’s independent analysis of the study’s underlying testing data. Carey Danis & Lowe has not independently verified all facts.
Get a free, no obligation case evaluation here.