As the old saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Even if you do beat ‘em, it’s sometimes a good idea to take steps so you don’t have to beat ‘em again.
That may be the Hershey Company’s thought process in spite of a federal judge once again dismissing a deceptive marketing lawsuit over Reese’s Halloween candies. On September 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian ruled that plaintiffs Nathan Vidal and Eduardo Granados failed to demonstrate economic harm or “a concrete injury under either a benefit-of-the-bargain theory or a price-premium-overcharge theory” in their amended complaint to an original lawsuit. When she dismissed the case, Judge Damian affirmed Hershey’s claim that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue over the lack of carved designs on its Reese’s Halloween-themed products.
While Vidal and Granados weren’t awarded the $5 million they sought, they may take some satisfaction in knowing their actions may have prompted Hershey to make changes on its Reese’s Peanut Butter product packaging. The previous disclaimer has been replaced with “Carving not on actual product.” Is Hershey’s packaging change evidence of wrongdoing or a response to public pressure? There may be “no wrong way to eat a Reese’s,” but mistakes may have been made in overrepresenting what to expect.
Sorry/Not Sorry (Or Just Not Sorry, Really)
Any legitimate discussion of candy juggernauts will undoubtedly contain Reese’s peanut butter products. Purchased by Hershey’s in 1963 (after being created by a former Hershey’s employee in 1928), the iconic chocolate-shrouded peanut butter cups have been joined by many seasonal shapes that include footballs, Christmas bells, and snowmen. Perhaps no collection is as popular as Reese’s Halloween candies, which offer peanut butter ghosts, bats, and jack-o-lantern faces. It also led to Hershey’s being named in consumer protection lawsuits.
Filed in 2024, the class-action suit accused Hershey’s of engaging in false advertising and deceptive packaging under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). While the packaging for the Reese’s Halloween items displayed “artistic carvings” in the treats, such as the eyes on the ghosts and the jack-o-lantern’s toothy grin, the actual candy lacked these features. The packaging noted that the images of the candy shown were a “decorating suggestion.” Stating that they wouldn’t have bought the candy if they’d known, the plaintiffs requested reimbursement for the packages purchased, along with $5 million in injunctive relief.
After dismissing the first lawsuit in 2025, Judge Damian remained unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s second bite at the peanut butter cup. Noting that the plaintiffs failed to show any actual economic injuries suffered, she ruled that their “subjective disappointment” over the candy’s presentation didn’t warrant damages. The court rendered the decision without prejudice, so an appeal is possible. Regardless, Hershey has taken steps to avoid further legal action.
We Did Nothing Wrong (But We’re Going to Change Stuff Anyway)
Changing the language in its disclaimer on Reese’s Halloween products may not be a tacit admission of fault, but it does show that customer objections don’t go unheeded. Changing course after a victory is nothing new, and in doing so, Hershey joins a brotherhood with some of the world’s largest companies.
In 2021, a court ruled that Apple Store’s policies didn’t make it a monopoly. Even so, Apple made changes that would affect its bottom line, such as cutting commission rates in half (from 30% to 15%) for developers grossing under $1 million annually. Lyft and Uber won a legal victory in a 2024 ruling by the California Supreme Court under Prop 22, allowing them to continue to classify their drivers as independent contractors. However, the negative public reaction to drivers’ situation may have influenced later decisions to implement changes such as a minimum earnings floor and access to subsidized healthcare benefits.
Nike won numerous court battles against claims of negligent misrepresentation and intentional or reckless misrepresentation regarding the manufacturing of its products, which were found to be legal under local foreign laws. However, the public scrutiny it received led the company to change its supply chain.
While the courts may have ruled that Reese’s was not at fault, Hershey realized that with a simple change, they could win in the court of public opinion.
