Hershey Updates Reese's Pumpkin Packaging After Lawsuit Dismissal

Key points

• As of October 6, 2026, Reese's Peanut Butter Pumpkins feature a new disclaimer reading 'Carving not on actual product' beneath the jack-o'-lantern image.
• The previous packaging used the phrase 'Decorating Suggestion,' which Hershey argued was sufficient to inform consumers that the designs were not physically present on the candy.
• Florida District Judge Melissa Damian dismissed the lawsuit on September 16, 2026, marking the second dismissal of the case since it was filed in May 2024.
• Plaintiffs Nathan Vidal, Debra Kennick, Abdjul Martin, and Eduardo Granados sought $5 million, claiming they would not have purchased the candies if they knew the carvings were not real.
• The plaintiffs' attorney, Anthony J. Russo Jr., stated the team is disappointed by the ruling and is considering an appeal.

Background

This dispute highlights ongoing tensions between consumer expectations and product packaging in the seasonal candy market. While our archive contains unrelated stories about pumpkin cultivation and other consumer lawsuits, this case specifically addresses the legal definition of deceptive marketing when product images depict features that are not physically present. The previous dismissal in September 2025 set the precedent that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a financial loss, only emotional disappointment, a standard that was upheld in the latest ruling.

How outlets are covering it

USA TODAY and WBBJ-TV focus primarily on the practical outcome: the specific change in the disclaimer text and the fact that Hershey has not publicly explained the reason for the update. WFTV provides additional context by quoting Hershey’s senior brand manager, Katie DeCapria, who previously defended the packaging by stating that the pumpkin shape is a cornerstone of their portfolio and that no changes were made to the candy shapes themselves. WFTV also includes a quote from plaintiff attorney James Kelly, who argued that Florida consumers deserve protection from misleading packaging, contrasting with the court's view that the issue was subjective. All sources agree on the timeline of the lawsuit and the dismissal, but they differ in emphasis: USA TODAY highlights the new wording, while WFTV emphasizes the legal arguments and the potential for an appeal.

Why it matters

This case sets a precedent for how courts interpret 'deceptive marketing' in the food industry, particularly regarding illustrative packaging. The shift from 'Decorating Suggestion' to 'Carving not on actual product' suggests that even after a legal victory, companies may feel compelled to clarify packaging to avoid future consumer confusion or litigation. It also underscores the difficulty plaintiffs face in proving financial harm when the product itself is edible and not defective, even if it does not match the visual representation on the package.

What to watch

The plaintiffs' legal team is currently evaluating whether to appeal the September 16 dismissal. If an appeal is filed, it could result in a higher court review of the standard for proving injury in consumer protection cases. Meanwhile, Hershey is likely to monitor consumer response to the new disclaimer to ensure it effectively prevents future claims of deception without altering the product itself.