Target Sold You a Lie by the Teaspoon

What Was Actually Stolen

Nobody got poisoned, thankfully. Nobody died, equally thankfully. The product in question is powdered coffee creamer , which here be a canister that sits on millions of kitchen counters, gets scooped into tens of millions of cups of coffee, and costs somewhere in the range of what an average person spends on lunch. This is the part of the story where some people will say: it’s just creamer, calm down.

Here is why that framing is wrong.

Astorria Sassano is a part-time resident of Hampton Bays, New York. She bought a canister of Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer at a Target in Commack on October 20, 2023. She did what the label told her to do: she read the Nutrition Facts Panel. She saw “about 500 servings.” She made a choice… in my opinion likely comparing it against the coffee creamer next to it on the shelf, using the serving count to figure out which one gave her more value per dollar. She trusted the number. That trust was the product of a federal regulatory system specifically designed to make that kind of comparison possible, reliable, and honest.

The number was a lie. Not a rounding error. A lie baked into the math: Target used 2 grams as the weight of one teaspoon of powder when the actual weight is 2.3 grams. That 0.3-gram discrepancy compounded across an entire kilogram canister means every buyer who walked out of a Target store with this product was carrying home a container that was, by law, misrepresenting how much coffee creamer they had purchased. They were paying the price of 500 servings and receiving (at the more conservative estimate from rigorous FDA-protocol testing of 12 separate containers btw) 433.

That is 67 cups of coffee that were never in the can. Sixty-seven mornings, or afternoons, or quiet moments with a mug. Multiplied across tens of thousands of New York buyers. Multiplied by however long Target continued selling this product after its own internal records suggest it knew (as early as August 2023) that the label was wrong.

The betrayal here is architectural. The Nutrition Facts Panel is not a suggestion or a marketing claim. It is a federally mandated, precisely defined communication tool built so that every consumer in America can stand in a grocery aisle and make a fair comparison. The FDA spent decades building those standards. Target’s label sits inside that system and borrows its authority: when a shopper sees “1 tsp (2g) — about 500 servings,” they are reading what they believe to be a regulated, verified fact. Target exploited that belief.

When Sassano found out the label was wrong, she had to hire a laboratory. She spent time and significant expense having the product independently tested because there was no other way to know. The regulatory system that was supposed to protect her had not caught this. The company that was supposed to be honest with her had not been. The money-back guarantee that was supposed to give her recourse had expired. She was left, months later, holding a receipt and a test report, having done more due diligence on a can of powdered creamer than most people will ever have to do on any purchase in their lives.

That is the non-financial ledger. The currency is trust, and Target spent it without asking.

Legal Receipts: What the Documents Say

Every claim in this investigation is drawn directly from the filed complaint and its attached laboratory reports. The language below is from those documents.

“On average, the Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer had a net mass of 998.44 ± 7.56 g, a total of 433.44 ± 2.52 1-teaspoon servings per container, and a serving size (1-teaspoon) mass of 2.30 ± 0.01 g. The results obtained in this study were different from the label claims of the products.”

— Log10® LLC Research Report, June 9, 2025 (Exhibit C-2)

• This quote is from a rigorous FDA-compliant test of 12 separate packages of the product, conducted by an accredited laboratory using certified equipment, two independent analysts, and 480 individual mass measurements. The result is not a single test on a single canister; it is a statistically robust finding.
• The label claims 500 servings. The lab found 433.44 servings. That is a documented gap of 66.56 servings, or 13.31% fewer servings than the legal minimum required by the “about 500 servings” representation.
• The label claims one teaspoon weighs 2 grams. The lab measured 2.30 grams — a 15.18% overstatement of how much powder fits in a teaspoon, which directly causes the inflated serving count.

“A legally labeled container of the Product would have reported 2.5g as the mass equivalent of a one teaspoon serving size. Because the Product is deceptively and falsely labeled, the Product is misbranded. N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 201 (2024). Misbranded products cannot be legally sold in New York. N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 199-a (2024).”

— Class Action Complaint, Paragraph 41

• Under federal rounding rules (21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(7)(ii)), a measured serving mass of 2.30 grams must be rounded to the nearest 0.5g for values between 2 and 5g — meaning the label was legally required to state “2.5g,” not “2g.”
• Using the correct 2.5g figure, dividing the 1,000g net mass yields 400 servings — the number that should have appeared on the label. Target printed 500. The complaint alleges this constitutes misbranding under New York Agriculture and Markets Law, which prohibits the sale of misbranded products in the state.
• The complaint explicitly states Target’s liability flows from New York consumer protection statutes and express warranty law — not from FDA regulatory enforcement. This distinction matters: it puts consumers, not federal agencies, in the enforcement seat.

“Upon information and reasonable belief, Target had actual knowledge of the false, deceptive and misleading label since approximately August 11, 2023, and continues to market, advertise, sell and distribute the Product with its false, deceptive and misleading label.”

— Class Action Complaint, Paragraph 68

• The complaint alleges Target received notice through its registered agent in August 2023 on behalf of a purchaser in a different state — two months before Sassano made her October 20, 2023 purchase.
• The complaint further alleges that Sassano purchased the product on at least one occasion after Target had this actual knowledge, and that Target made no corrective action despite receiving detailed written notice again on February 15, 2024.
• If proven, this timeline transforms the conduct from negligence into something worse: a company that knew its label was wrong, kept selling the product anyway, and collected the price premium every time.

Public Deception: What Target Said vs. What Was True

Target’s Nutrition Facts Panel is a legal document as much as a marketing tool — and on at least three specific, documented claims, what it told consumers diverged from reality confirmed by laboratory testing.

• Claim: “1 tsp (2g)” serving size. The label stated one teaspoon of the powder weighs 2 grams. Two independent labs found the actual weight was 2.30 to 2.40 grams — meaning Target understated the gram weight of a teaspoon by 15% to 20%. Under federal rounding requirements, the label was required to print “2.5g.”
• Claim: “About 500 servings per container.” Federal regulation defines “about 500 servings” as containing between 499.5 and 500.49 teaspoon-sized servings. The rigorous 12-package lab test found an average of 433.44 servings — 66.56 short of the legal floor. The first lab test found Sassano’s specific container was missing approximately 83 servings, or 16.6% of what was promised.
• Claim: “Expect More. Pay Less.” / “More for your money.” Target’s own brand promise, displayed on its corporate materials, directly contradicted the economic reality of buying this product: buyers paid for 500 servings and received 433. They received less and paid as if they were getting more.
• Claim: 365-day money-back guarantee. The complaint alleges Target markets an unconditional-sounding return guarantee. In practice, the guarantee requires a receipt and covers only purchases within 365 days. By the time Sassano’s independent lab results came back in January 2024, her October 2023 purchase was within the window — but Target did not provide a refund after receiving written notice in February 2024. An earlier purchase she had made before June 2022 was outside the window entirely.

Regulatory Gray Zones: The Loophole Is the Label Itself

The mechanism of this fraud is a federal measurement standard that creates an almost invisible gap between what is required and what is verifiable by any ordinary consumer without a laboratory.

• The gram-weight rounding rule (21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(7)(ii)) requires that serving size masses between 2g and 5g be rounded to the nearest 0.5g. A product where one teaspoon weighs 2.30g must display “2.5g.” But there is no mechanism for a shopper to verify this in a store. The regulatory obligation exists entirely at the manufacturing and labeling stage — where Target controlled the number and chose to print 2g instead of the required 2.5g.
• The word “about” in “about 500 servings” has a legal definition under 21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(8)(i): the container must hold between 499.5 and 500.49 servings. Consumers reasonably read “about” as an approximation. The regulatory meaning is a tight, specific range. Target’s label was outside that range by more than 66 servings on average — but the word “about” provides a layer of apparent reasonableness that a layperson would not pierce without knowing federal food labeling regulations.
• The complaint directly flags the structural consumer harm: “A consumer has no ability to determine if the representations on the label are true without buying the Product and apportioning them in accordance with the Product’s label instructions or having it tested by a laboratory.” The regulatory framework places the burden of accuracy entirely on the manufacturer and provides consumers no practical means of independent verification at the point of purchase.
• Because the complaint grounds its claims in New York GBL §§349 and 350 — not FDA enforcement — it sidesteps the federal preemption question and operates in the space where state consumer protection law can reach conduct that federal agencies have not actively prosecuted. The complaint explicitly states: “Defendant’s liability stems not from a violation of FDA regulations but from violations of §§ 349 and 350 of the GBL and from breaches of express warranties.”

Profit-Maximization at All Costs: 20% More Servings for Free

The economics of this mislabeling are straightforward: by printing “2g” instead of the legally required “2.5g,” Target effectively advertised 25% more servings per gram of powder — and sold consumers on a price per serving that was never achievable from the actual contents of the can.

• The correct calculation: 1,000g net mass ÷ 2.5g per serving = 400 servings. Target’s label calculation: 1,000g ÷ 2g = 500 servings. The label claimed 100 more servings than the container could legally deliver. The complaint states Target “was claiming to deliver 20% more servings than allowed by law.”
• Target is a general merchandise retailer with net sales of $107 billion in fiscal year 2024 and approximately 2,000 retail stores nationwide, including 107 in New York. Market Pantry is one of its private-label brands — meaning Target both manufactures and retails the product, capturing the full margin on both ends of the transaction.
• The financial injury to each buyer is calculable and quantifiable: at least 13.31% of the purchase price, per container. The complaint alleges the class consists of tens of thousands of New York consumers, and places the aggregate claim above $5,000,000 under the Class Action Fairness Act. Target continued selling the product after receiving notice of the defect, which the complaint characterizes as willful or knowing conduct — a predicate for treble damages under GBL §349.
• The plaintiff alleges that “Target sold the Product at a premium price per actual serving provided.” By understating the per-serving gram weight, Target was able to inflate the apparent value of the product in comparative shopping — making Market Pantry appear to offer more servings per dollar than competing products that were labeled accurately.

Legal Minimalism: The Label That Followed the Letter and Broke the Law

The FDA’s Nutrition Facts Panel regulations exist for one documented purpose: to enable consumers to make accurate, comparable, side-by-side evaluations of competing products. Target’s label technically occupies all the right boxes in the right format — and in doing so, exploited the entire system.

• 21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(7)(ii) requires that gram-mass equivalents of household serving sizes between 2g and 5g be rounded to the nearest 0.5g. This rule exists so that a consumer comparing two products with similar serving sizes sees equivalent, honest gram weights. Target’s label printed “2g” for a powder that weighs 2.30g per teaspoon. The correctly rounded figure — “2.5g” — would have compelled a lower serving count and made the product’s true value-per-serving immediately visible to any shopper doing the math.
• 21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(8) requires that the number of servings be derived from the actual measured serving size. The rule’s purpose is to prevent manufacturers from inflating perceived value by using a smaller-than-actual gram weight in the denominator. Target did exactly what this rule was written to prevent: it divided 1,000g by 2g (wrong denominator) to get 500 servings (inflated result), rather than using the correct 2.5g to arrive at 400 servings.
• The complaint draws a direct precedent: in Yonan v. Target, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 3d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2022), the same formula was applied to Coffee Mate creamer. The case survived a motion to dismiss, settled as a nationwide class action, and Nestlé corrected its label. The regulatory system worked — eventually, through litigation, not enforcement. Target sells its own private-label version of the same product type and has not corrected its label despite a prior notice and a prior precedent involving its own brand name in the case caption.