VeggieBoards banner

Big Mayo Files Frivolous Lawsuit Against Eggless Competitor

6K views 90 replies 28 participants last post by  theverdevegan 
#1 ·


Food Giant Unilever suing Hampton Creek for daring to offer a cruelty-free and sustainable alternative, whining that: "Just Mayo already is stealing market share from Hellmann's"

Business school pop quiz: What's a $60 billion global behemoth to do when a San Francisco start-up cuts into their profits? If answers like "innovate your products" or "hire a better marketing team" come to mind, you must not work at Unilever. That company's response to competition is to take them to court. Unilever owns many top food brands such as Best Foods (and is also the largest deodorant maker in the world). The company is suing Hampton Creek for unfair business practices and false advertising, claiming their plant-based product called Just Mayo is deceptive to consumers because it doesn't contain eggs. Actually that's the whole point: to not use eggs.

Started in 2011, Hampton Creek has received a lot of media attention (and financial backing) for its scientific approach to making plant-based alternatives to eggs, aiming at the heart of a cruel and unsustainable industry. The company's first consumer product, Just Mayo has enjoyed a fast rise to success, not only in natural retail channels like Whole Foods, but also mainstream markets such as Walmart, Costco, Target, and even Dollar Tree. Unlike previous vegan spreads that mimic mayonnaise, Just Mayo is not aimed at just being a niche product; and that's exactly has Unilever, maker of Hellmann's and Best Foods, shaking in their boots.
I haven't been able to try Just Mayo yet but it must be pretty delicious if it has Unilever shaking in their boots. Funnily enough they are just giving vegan mayo a ton of free publicity! ;)

There's a petition you can sign in support of Just Mayo here: https://www.change.org/p/tell-unilever-to-stop-bullying-sustainable-food-companies
 
See less See more
1
#2 · (Edited)
The product sounds great and I'm going to look for it in the store to try.

Whoever wrote that article needs to get honest. Making cruelty-free foods is the right thing to do. When you're right, you have truth on your side already--no need to use bullying tactics like writing dishonest articles and posting them on the Internet. (I'm not talking about you, OP, I'm talking about whoever wrote that article. I know you are just sharing a news article.)

Sounds to me like the lawsuit does not meet the definition of frivolous, since the company actually is marketing the product as being mayo and the product does not meet the FDA's definition of mayo. Whether or not any of us like or agree with that definition, or the company filing a lawsuit about it, has no bearing on whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. The fact that there's a petition to help the company prevail in the suit indicates even the author of the article does not believe the suit fits the definition of frivolous!

Big Mayo...Food Giant Unilever suing Hampton Creek for daring to offer a cruelty-free and sustainable alternative, whining that: "Just Mayo already is stealing market share from Hellmann's"
I mean, come on. Either the lawsuit is retribution for making a cruelty-free product or it isn't. That has nothing to do with market share. That just sounds so dishonest.

I found this article in a law journal (at least they claim to be a law journal--I'm not personally familiar with it). This claims the lawsuit is 0% about "daring to make a cruelty-free product".

If the article was more believable, I would read the actual court papers to verify Unilever is suing because a product is cruelty-free, but it seems to lack credibility, so I'm not gonna bother.
 
#6 ·
The product sounds great and I'm going to look for it in the store to try.

Whoever wrote that article needs to get honest. Making cruelty-free foods is the right thing to do. When you're right, you have truth on your side already--no need to use bullying tactics like writing dishonest articles and posting them on the Internet. (I'm not talking about you, OP, I'm talking about whoever wrote that article. I know you are just sharing a news article.)

Sounds to me like the lawsuit does not meet the definition of frivolous, since the company actually is marketing the product as being mayo and the product does not meet the FDA's definition of mayo. Whether or not any of us like or agree with that definition, or the company filing a lawsuit about it, has no bearing on whether or not the lawsuit is frivolous. The fact that there's a petition to help the company prevail in the suit indicates even the author of the article does not believe the suit fits the definition of frivolous!

I mean, come on. Either the lawsuit is retribution for making a cruelty-free product or it isn't. That has nothing to do with market share. That just sounds so dishonest.

I found this article in a law journal (at least they claim to be a law journal--I'm not personally familiar with it). This claims the lawsuit is 0% about "daring to make a cruelty-free product".

If the article was more believable, I would read the actual court papers to verify Unilever is suing because a product is cruelty-free, but it seems to lack credibility, so I'm not gonna bother.
You make an excellent point and I agree that legally Unilever probably has grounds to file a suit. On the other hand, Unilever sucks and I hope the findings are in favor of Hampton Creek. I think it would be poetic justice if the French sued Unilever for trying to pass that preservative laden mess off as actual mayonnaise.

I signed that petition also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LedBoots
#4 ·
I signed.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Nowhere on this product does it describe itself as mayonnaise. 'Just Mayo', mayo not having criteria set forth by FDA. Here is an excerpt from the FDA page,
Sec. 169.140 Mayonnaise.
(a) Description. Mayonnaise is the emulsified semisolid food prepared from vegetable oil(s), one or both of the acidifying ingredients specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and one or more of the egg yolk-containing ingredients specified in paragraph (c) of this section. One or more of the ingredients specified in paragraph (d) of this section may also be used. The vegetable oil(s) used may contain an optional crystallization inhibitor as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section. All the ingredients from which the food is fabricated shall be safe and suitable. Mayonnaise contains not less than 65 percent by weight of vegetable oil. Mayonnaise may be mixed and packed in an atmosphere in which air is replaced in whole or in part by carbon dioxide or nitrogen.

(b) Acidifying ingredients. (1) Any vinegar or any vinegar diluted with water to an acidity, calculated as acetic acid, of not less than 2 1/2 percent by weight, or any such vinegar or diluted vinegar mixed with an optional acidifying ingredient as specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. For the purpose of this paragraph, any blend of two or more vinegars is considered to be a vinegar.
This stuff is shelf stable and very tasty. Legally frivolous or not, suing a company for making a product called 'mayo' which happens to taste like mayonnaise without eggs is frivolous.
 
#9 ·
You can't really blame Unilever. Their lawsuit is only silly if it doesn't work. They obviously did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it was worth the risk. Its kind of out there but you have to expect that when you compete in business. Naturally as consumers you can vote for just Mayo by purchasing it, which is the beauty of the free market. In a sense its the only true democracy since Athens.
 
#12 ·
Naturally as consumers you can vote for just Mayo by purchasing it, which is the beauty of the free market. In a sense its the only true democracy since Athens.
Except, if big business wins, democracy is tossed out the window. How can you vote for a candidate, if they're removed from the ballot? It's the politics of assassination. We're not a democracy yet; we're a republic, subject to rules heavily influenced by corruption. Should Vegenaise be sued, because it has, naise, as part of its name? If big business wins, the market won't be so free, will it? I don't know about Athens, but we're not that beautiful yet.
 
#11 ·
I have it right now! I paid $2.50 for a 16oz. on sale. It is very good. I'm thinking it tastes more like egg mayo-it's very rich and definitely thicker. I've had it in my fridge for maybe a couple months and it holds it's shape.
I don't like the "Just Mayo" title either. If it weren't for another post here I wouldn't have known it was vegan by looking, esp being on a shelf.

Anyway, it might be made of oils but it's still better than egg mayo. And now it gets free advertising!
 
#16 ·
And Mao Zedong too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purp
#18 ·
Yeah, I'm in my late shift phase. There's a Brando movie coming on shortly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purp
#24 ·
Companies are always suing one another. The legal issue isn't that Hampton Creek is taking market share from Hellmann's, it's that they're calling their product mayo without adhering to the legal standard of identity for mayonnaise. If they call it a mayonnaise substitute or if they misspell the word, or if they call it not-mayo, there's no basis for a lawsuit. But these guys left themselves open to a lawsuit by calling the product "mayo" even though it lacks one ingredient that the standard of identity for mayonnaise says it must contain.
 
#26 ·
Agreed. I was peeved that they would use the mayo. I never liked real mayonnaise, and rarely used salad dressing types like miracle whip.
There are many people who either don't like eggy tastes, have egg allergies, or avoid them for health or ethics. If not for this lawsuit Just Mayo may have gone unnoticed for being vegan. I would not have gotten past the title to see the little plant growing from the egg!
 
#28 · (Edited)
"Mayo" means mayonnaise. It's not a misspelling like, you know, "cheez," it's a word that has been in common parlance for decades as a shorter form of the word "mayonnaise." This will have to play out in the courts, for a final ruling on whether a well-worn and common nickname takes on all the legal requirements of a product's more formal name. This might actually have been created as sort of a test case, for the "mayonnaise substitute" makers to see what they can get away with, with Unilever pushing back as expected to challenge the attempt. It would be funny if this were all their attempt to garner name recognition without having to do much advertising. Like others here, I'm eager to try it, since I haven't been satisfied with any mayo substitute I've tried so far. They're all too sweet.

I think standards of identity were created as a way to make competition fairer among producers of the same class of product. So if you're calling something pepperoni pizza, the standard of identity requires that the product contain at least 10% pepperoni (its costliest ingredient). If you cut that corner, you're cheating the consumer and not playing fair against your competition. Ice cream has to have a certain amount of cream in it or they have to call it something else. It's also to prevent companies from substituting inferior ingredients for what a customer should reasonably be able to expect as a set of basic ingredients. This mayo case goes pretty far afield of these intentions behind of the rules, since this product probably costs more to buy than traditional mayonnaise, and because the customers seek it out for its lack of egg. So it's more the letter of the law that's being pushed here, not so much the spirit.
 
#30 ·
Miracle Whip has never called itself mayonnaise, even though it looks like it, tastes a lot like it, and is used in pretty much the same recipes. Miracle Whip labels itself as "salad dressing."Again, it goes back to standard of identity: it doesn't have as much vegetable oil in it. Mayonnaise has to have, among other things, at least 65% vegetable oil, and miracle whip doesn't. It's not just about intention to deceive; there are some specific requirements it has to adhere to if it's going to call itself by the product class name.
 
#31 ·
Then it hinges on whether, mayo, as slang, is legally binding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purp
#33 ·
This is one time I hope the letter of the law prevails.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Of course. It would be infringement of "I Can't... Not Butter," which they own.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Yes, I know. But they'd have changed the noun. They should probably also beat the drum on how you won't get salmonella poisoning from a plant-based mayo substitute, no matter how long that potato salad festers in the hot summer sun at the picnic. Not just healthier, but safer. I've got an omnivore nephew who takes field roast sausages with him when he goes camping, because he doesn't have to worry about them going bad without refrigeration for a couple of days.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top