Hershey Wins Lawsuit Claiming Reese’s Candies Aren’t Spooky Enough: What This Means for Consumers and Candy Law
Halloween is a time for spooky fun, delicious treats, and apparently, intense legal battles over the artistic integrity of candy. Recently, Hershey emerged victorious in a lawsuit that claimed their Reese’s Halloween candies weren’t quite as “spooky” as advertised. But what does this mean for you, the consumer, and what does it tell us about the bizarre world of candy law? Let’s unwrap this case and see what’s inside.
The Case of the Missing Jack-O’-Lantern Face
In 2024, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Hershey, alleging that the company misled consumers by depicting Halloween-themed Reese’s candies with “cool, carved designs” on the packaging, designs that were noticeably absent on the actual candies themselves. Think pumpkin-shaped Reese’s without the jack-o’-lantern face, or ghosts without eyes. The plaintiffs argued that they bought the candies expecting these artistic details and were disappointed when they weren’t there. They sought over $5 million in damages, claiming they wouldn’t have purchased the candies had they known the designs were missing.
According to reports, the lawsuit focused on several Hershey candies marketed around Halloween, including Reese’s Peanut Butter Pumpkins and Reese’s White Ghost, as well as other holiday-themed chocolates like Reese’s Peanut Butter Shapes Assortment Snowmen Stockings Bells. The core argument was that Hershey used deceptive advertising because the “artistic designs” depicted on the wrappers were absent from the actual candies.
Hershey’s Defense: Delicious Candy is Still Delicious
Hershey fought back, arguing that the plaintiffs suffered no actual injury because they still received “delicious Reese’s candy.” They pointed out that the candies weren’t defective, met flavor expectations, and the packaging even included pictures of the uncarved designs and a “decorating suggestion” disclaimer. In other words, they delivered edible candy that was not defective, unfit for consumption, or without value. The company also noted that some packages showed partially eaten candy, which no reasonable consumer would expect to receive in a new package.
The Verdict: No Economic Harm, No Case
In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian ruled in favor of Hershey, dismissing the lawsuit. The judge stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the lack of details on the candies caused them any “concrete economic harm.” She noted that while the consumers may have been disappointed by the chocolates’ unwrapped appearances, the candies were not “so flawed as to render them worthless.” The court emphasized that disappointment over appearance does not amount to an economic injury.
The judge elaborated that the consumers’ allegations boiled down to their subjective, personal expectations of how the products would or should have looked when unpackaged.
What This Means for Consumers
While this case might seem trivial, it touches on important aspects of consumer law and advertising. Here’s what you should take away:
- Subjective Disappointment Isn’t Enough: Just because you’re unhappy with a product’s appearance doesn’t automatically mean you’re entitled to compensation. You need to demonstrate actual harm.
- Packaging as a Guide, Not a Guarantee: Packaging is designed to be appealing, but it’s not always a precise representation of the product inside.
- Read the Fine Print: Disclaimers and “decorating suggestions” can protect companies from liability if the product doesn’t perfectly match the image on the box.
Anthony Russo, the attorney representing the consumers, indicated that the complaint would be amended and refiled. He stated, “We believe that companies should not be awarded with sales when they falsely represent the main characteristic of the product and only have to pay damages if it can be shown that the consumers paid a premium.”
The Bigger Picture: Candy, Trademarks, and Intellectual Property
This case also highlights the importance of trademarks and intellectual property in the candy industry. Candy makers fiercely protect their brands, shapes, and packaging to stand out in a crowded market.
- Trade Dress: The “trade dress” of a product, which includes its packaging and overall look, can be protected under trademark law if it’s distinctive and identifies the source of the product.
- Shape as Trademark: Even the shape of a candy can be trademarked, like the iconic triangular shape of a Toblerone bar or the cone shape of Hershey’s Kisses.
- Trademark Infringement: Companies can sue if others use similar names, logos, or packaging that could confuse consumers.
Hershey, for example, has trademarks on the original Hershey Chocolate bar, Hershey’s Kisses, and even the word “Kisses.”
A Word of Advice: Enjoy Your Candy, But Be Realistic
While it’s perfectly reasonable to expect products to match their descriptions, it’s also important to have realistic expectations. A mass-produced candy is unlikely to have the same level of detail as a professionally styled photo on the packaging.
So, this Halloween, enjoy your Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, whether they have a perfectly carved jack-o’-lantern face or not. And remember, sometimes the most delicious treats are the ones that surprise you.
The Spooky Side of Candy: Other Legal Battles
The “spooky” Reese’s lawsuit isn’t the only legal trouble Hershey has faced. Other recent cases include:
- PFAS in Packaging: A class-action lawsuit alleges that Hershey’s candy wrappers contain “forever chemicals” (PFAS), which are linked to health risks.
- Ethical Sourcing: A lawsuit claimed that Hershey’s organic, plant-based chocolate was not ethically sourced or sustainable, despite claims on the packaging.
- Disability Discrimination: The EEOC sued Hershey in 2017 for allegedly firing an employee with a disability after denying her request for accommodation.
These cases demonstrate that the candy industry faces a wide range of legal challenges, from product safety to ethical sourcing and labor practices.
The Future of Candy Law
As consumer awareness grows and regulations evolve, we can expect to see more legal battles over candy-related issues. Companies will need to be increasingly transparent about their ingredients, sourcing, and manufacturing processes to avoid potential lawsuits and maintain consumer trust.
What do you think? Should companies be held liable for minor discrepancies between product packaging and the actual product?