Court Dismisses “Reese’s Shapes” Packaging Suit Against Hershey

California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes
November 18, 2025

Vidal v. The Hershey Company, No. 24-60831-CIV-DAMIAN (S.D. Fla.)

The Southern District of Florida granted The Hershey Company’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action alleging deceptive packaging for its seasonal Reese’s Peanut Butter Shapes, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. 2025 WL 2686987, at *4-7.

Plaintiffs Nathan Vidal and Eduardo Granados claimed they purchased Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins and Reese’s White Pumpkins based on packaging that depicted “cool looking” carved pumpkin faces, but the actual products were blank. They alleged a single violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201. Id. at *1-2, *4-5.

Hershey manufactures and markets a range of Reese’s Peanut Butter products, including the Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins shown above. The products plaintiffs purchased, however, did not feature the carved mouth and eye designs displayed on the packaging and were instead entirely plain, as shown below.

Hershey argued that plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no injury-in-fact and received the benefit of their bargain — “delicious Reese’s candy.” Id. at *2, *6. It further contended that the packaging included “DECORATING SUGGESTION” disclaimers and that the claim failed under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Id. at *2-3, *4-6.

Judge Damian held that the plaintiffs’ allegations of “disappointment” did not amount to an economic injury. Id. at *6. The order emphasized that plaintiffs did not allege the candies were defective, inedible, or otherwise worthless, nor did they plead facts showing a diminution in value or price premium. Id. at *6-7. Relying on district precedent, the Court found the allegations “boil down to [plaintiffs’] subjective, personal expectations” and therefore failed to establish a concrete injury under Article III. Id. at *6 (citing Valiente v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., No. 22-22930, 2023 WL 3620538 (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2023), and Melancon v. Alpha Prime Supps LLC, No. 24-61135, 2025 WL 375903 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2025)).

Because the absence of standing deprived the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction, it declined to reach Hershey’s remaining Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) arguments or the motion to strike class allegations. 2025 WL 2686987, at *7. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at *7-8. Plaintiffs’ embedded request for leave to amend — made only in their response brief — was denied as procedurally improper, though the Court allowed them fifteen days to file a proper motion for leave under Rule 15. Id.

All other pending motions, including plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the parties’ joint motion to stay, were denied as moot. Id. at *8. The clerk was directed to close the case. Id.

Next Steps

Under the order, plaintiffs must file a properly noticed motion for leave to amend within fifteen days of September 19, 2025, or bring any renewed pleading as a new action. Id. Absent such a filing, the case remains closed.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

This article was originally published in the California Lawyers Association E-Briefs, News and Notes: October 2025