Kroger to Pay $1.25 Million in California False Advertising Settlement

Kroger has agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a civil enforcement case in California involving allegations of false advertising and inaccurate nutritional labeling on some of its store-brand bread products.

What the case was about

The settlement resolves claims brought by district attorneys in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Riverside counties, who accused Kroger of providing incorrect calorie information on several varieties of its Carbmaster bread and related products.

According to prosecutors, Kroger:

  • Listed lower calorie counts on packaging and online listings
  • Initially miscalculated nutritional values when products were introduced
  • Continued displaying incorrect information even after corrections were made internally

In some examples cited by investigators, products advertised as containing 30–50 calories per serving were actually closer to 50–100 calories, depending on the variety.

How the issue was discovered

Authorities say the issue began when Kroger introduced the products around 2021 and later received consumer complaints about inconsistent labeling. Even after the company updated nutrition labels, prosecutors alleged that the marketing and front-of-package claims continued to show incorrect values for months afterward.

One bread variety reportedly continued displaying inaccurate calorie information online for nearly two years, according to the complaint.

Legal claims

The lawsuit alleged violations of:

  • California False Advertising Law
  • Unfair Competition Law

Officials argued that accurate nutritional labeling is especially important for consumers managing diets, health conditions, or weight-related goals.

Settlement details

Under the agreement:

  • Kroger will pay $1.25 million
  • The case is resolved without an admission of wrongdoing
  • The funds will go toward penalties and enforcement costs

A Kroger spokesperson did not provide public comment on the settlement.

Why it matters

Regulators say the case highlights growing scrutiny of food labeling accuracy in large grocery chains, especially as more consumers rely on packaged nutrition data for health decisions.