Hershey Updates Reese's Pumpkin Packaging After Court Dismisses Deceptive Marketing Suit

Key points

• Hershey updated the packaging for Reese's Peanut Butter Pumpkins as of October 6, 2026, adding the text 'Carving not on actual product' beneath the jack-o-lantern image.
• The new wording replaces the previous 'Decorating Suggestion' label, which the company argued was sufficient to inform consumers that the images were not literal representations of the candy.
• Florida District Judge Melissa Damian dismissed the case on September 16, 2026, marking the second dismissal of the lawsuit filed in May 2024.
• The plaintiffs, including Nathan Vidal, claimed they would not have purchased the candies if they knew the pumpkins were blank, seeking $5 million in damages.
• The judge characterized the plaintiffs' injury as 'subjective disappointment,' noting that the products were not defective or inedible.
• Attorneys for the plaintiffs, including Anthony J. Russo Jr., expressed disappointment in the ruling and are discussing a potential appeal.

Background

This dispute stems from a lawsuit filed in May 2024 by Florida residents Nathan Vidal, Debra Kennick, Abdjul Martin, and Eduardo Granados. They alleged that Hershey engaged in deceptive advertising for several Reese's Peanut Butter holiday candies, including pumpkins, ghosts, bats, and winter shapes. The case had previously been dismissed in September 2025, with the judge allowing an amended complaint that was subsequently dismissed again in September 2026. Earlier coverage noted that Hershey maintained that reasonable consumers would understand the images as suggestions, a stance reinforced by the 'Decorating Suggestion' label used in prior years.

How outlets are covering it

WFTV and USA Today report consistent facts regarding the lawsuit's dismissal and the packaging change. WFTV highlights the specific new disclaimer text and the judge's characterization of the injury as 'subjective disappointment.' USA Today provides additional detail on the plaintiffs' identities and the specific candies involved, noting that Hershey has not explained why the disclaimer was adjusted. Both sources agree that the plaintiffs are considering an appeal, with USA Today citing the Russo Firm's statement of disappointment. There is no significant disagreement between the outlets, though USA Today offers more granular detail on the legal timeline and the specific wording of the previous disclaimer.

Why it matters

The case highlights ongoing debates about consumer protection and deceptive marketing in the food industry. While the court ruled in favor of Hershey, the decision to update the packaging suggests the company is taking steps to avoid future disputes. The outcome may influence how other companies design packaging for seasonal products, potentially leading to clearer disclaimers to prevent similar lawsuits. The potential appeal could also set a precedent for how courts interpret 'subjective disappointment' in consumer fraud cases.

What to watch

The plaintiffs' attorneys are discussing a potential appeal of the September 16 dismissal. If they proceed, the case could revisit the legal standards for deceptive marketing and consumer expectations. Hershey has not commented on the packaging change, but the new disclaimer may become a standard for future seasonal releases. Consumers may continue to monitor the packaging for clarity, and the outcome of any appeal could impact similar cases in the food industry.