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.