PepsiCo PopCorners Class Action Filed in California Over Slack-Fill Snack Packaging

PepsiCo, Inc. is now at the center of a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court, with plaintiffs accusing the company of deceptively packaging its popular PopCorners snacks. According to the lawsuit, the bags are filled with large amounts of nonfunctional slack-fill—empty space not justified by any legitimate reason—making the product appear more substantial than it is.

The case, Bonnie Reyes et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc. et al., was filed on June 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It claims that the beverage and snack giant misled consumers by selling PopCorners in opaque bags that are sometimes more than half empty, a move that plaintiffs allege gives the company an unfair edge over its competitors.

This developing PopCorners class action raises major concerns about truth in labeling, consumer deception, and the growing scrutiny over misleading snack packaging.

What the PopCorners Slack-Fill Lawsuit Alleges

According to the complaint, PepsiCo is accused of engaging in consumer packaging fraud by underfilling its PopCorners snack bags, specifically the 7-ounce "Sea Salt" variety, while still marketing them as if they were adequately filled. The plaintiffs assert that the company’s PopCorners deceptive packaging leads buyers to believe they are purchasing more product than they actually receive.

A side-by-side image included in the legal filing reportedly shows the front-facing PopCorners Sea Salt packaging compared to its contents after opening, revealing significant empty space. 

This central issue forms the basis of a nonfunctional slack-fill class action, where plaintiffs claim the space inside the container is not justified by any allowable federal exception.

Key Legal Details and Case Status

• Case number: 2:25-cv-04951
• Assigned judge: Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue
• Lead plaintiff: Bonnie Reyes
• Defendant: PepsiCo, Inc. (doing business as PopCorners)
   

Two procedural steps have already taken place:
 

• On June 5, 2025, a 21-day summons was issued to PepsiCo.
• That same day, the case was randomly assigned to the above-mentioned U.S. Magistrate Judge.

As of now, PepsiCo has not filed an official response in court.

What Is Slack-Fill, and Why It Matters

In consumer packaging, slack-fill refers to the empty space within a product container. While some slack-fill is functional, whether for product protection or required labeling, not all of it is legally permissible.

The complaint cites Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 100.100, which deems food packaging misbranded if it includes nonfunctional slack-fill that could mislead consumers. Plaintiffs argue that the PopCorners bag, half empty, violates this rule, as none of the six exceptions under the federal regulation apply.

The lawsuit challenges the product under the following grounds:

• The empty space does not protect the contents.
• The packaging machinery could be easily adjusted to add more product.
• The space is not due to settling during shipping.
• The packaging has no special function that requires slack-fill.
• The container is not reusable or valuable beyond its basic use.
• The company could either increase the fill or reduce the container size.
   

Because none of these statutory exemptions apply, the complaint argues that the PopCorners packaging is in violation of federal law.
 

Specific Causes of Action

The plaintiffs also bring forward three key legal claims:

• Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)
• False and misleading advertising (Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.)
• Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.)
   

These claims are rooted in allegations that PepsiCo is falsely advertising snacks by portraying the PopCorners product as more substantial than it is.
 

The lawsuit seeks:

• Injunctive relief
• Compensatory and statutory damages
• Restitution
• Attorneys’ fees
   

Class Action Allegations and Who May Be Affected

According to the official filing, this PopCorners class action aims to represent:
 

“All persons who purchased the Product in California for personal use and not for resale during the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present.”

Excluded from the proposed class are PepsiCo’s employees, executives, and anyone compensated for using or endorsing the product.

The lawsuit argues that thousands of consumers may qualify, making individual lawsuits impractical. Class certification, if approved, could allow plaintiffs to consolidate claims and seek relief collectively.
 

Historical Context: Slack-Fill Lawsuits in California

This isn’t the first time a snack company has faced similar legal challenges. According to the filing, several courts have allowed empty bag snack lawsuits to proceed or be certified as class actions. Past examples include suits involving brands like Junior Mints®, Swedish Fish®, Orgain®, and Optimum Nutrition®.
 

In several of those cases, motions to dismiss were denied, and settlements were reached or class certification granted. The current PepsiCo packaging lawsuit points to this legal precedent in arguing the merits of the claim.
 

What Consumers Should Know

California residents who purchased PopCorners in recent years, especially the Sea Salt variety, may be affected by this PopCorners Sea Salt lawsuit. If the court certifies the class, eligible buyers could be entitled to compensation or other remedies.
 

If you believe you may be affected:

• Keep any proof of purchase or packaging, if available.
• Stay informed through trusted legal directories and updates.
• Consider contacting consumer rights platforms to check your eligibility.
   

Final Notes: A Growing Legal Trend

The PopCorners slack-fill lawsuit highlights a broader trend in food packaging litigation. As regulatory scrutiny grows and consumers demand greater transparency, companies may face increasing pressure to ensure that packaging reflects product quantity honestly and clearly.
 

For now, the outcome of the PepsiCo California lawsuit remains uncertain. But as the case proceeds through the courts, it may offer yet another test of how far brands can go in marketing their products and how much empty space is too much.