‘Decoration Suggestion’ Disclaimer Sinks Class Action: Federal Court Tosses Lawsuit Over Reese’s Pumpkin Packaging

The packaging displayed a pumpkin-shaped treat with “cool and beautiful carved-out designs” — eyes and a mouth — that gave it the look of a classic Halloween jack-o’-lantern. The Reese’s peanut butter pumpkins inside were pumpkin-shaped, distinguishing them from year-round Reese’s Cups, but their surfaces were plain and smooth, with no carved facial features whatsoever; as the plaintiffs put it, “they were all blank.” In short, the pumpkins had the shape pictured on the package, but none of their decorative artistry.

Nathan Vidal and Eduardo Granados bought the seasonal candy at Publix in October and November 2023. Both said they expected the pumpkins to look like the jack-o’-lantern pictured on the wrapper and were disappointed when the chocolates were simply pumpkin-shaped.

They sued under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. After the court dismissed their first complaint for failing to allege a concrete injury, the plaintiffs amended their claims. They said they bought the candy for its “novelty/party-display value” and argued that decorated pumpkins carried a 20.4% to 25% price premium over ordinary Reese’s Cups.

US District Judge Melissa Damian dismissed the amended case on September 16, finding no legally cognizable injury. The plaintiffs did not allege that the candy was defective, inedible, or bad tasting. They received the product they bought: edible chocolates shaped like pumpkins.

The court characterized the claimed harm as “subjective disappointment,” not a loss that Florida law compensates. The plaintiffs’ novelty-value theory did not change that analysis; the court viewed it as an attempt to repackage the same aesthetic complaint in legal terms.

The price-premium theory also failed. The plaintiffs relied on prices from Target, Walmart, and Hershey’s website, but they bought their candy at Publix and did not allege a premium there. They also compared pumpkins with ordinary cup-shaped chocolates, rather than showing that consumers paid more for pumpkins with carved designs than for pumpkins without them.

The packaging itself supplied another problem. Next to the idealized image, Hershey printed “DECORATING SUGGESTION” in all caps. The court said the disclaimer was not the sole basis for dismissal, but it reinforced that the image was aspirational rather than a guarantee. The case was dismissed without prejudice. For companies, the takeaway is straightforward: clear disclaimers matter, but consumers’ subjective disappointment over a product’s appearance is not, by itself, a legal injury.