Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.
1–10 of 20
Workplace equitySettlement
PepsiCo settles disability discrimination lawsuit
PepsiCo agreed to pay $270,000 and work with an accessibility consultant to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
PepsiCo to Pay $270,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
– PepsiCo Beverage Sales, LLC, a Delaware company operating a facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, agreed to pay $270,000 and work with an accessibility consultant to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
PepsiCo to Pay $270,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
According to the EEOC’s suit, PepsiCo hired a blind employee as a customer care advocate for its Winston-Salem call center in April 2022.
The suit also alleged that PepsiCo rejected an offer by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources to assist PepsiCo with identifying accessibility solutions for the employee.
Under the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, PepsiCo is enjoined from failing to provide a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA; must work with an expert to ensure that certain software applications at the Winston-Salem facility will be accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; make periodic progress reports to the EEOC; maintain and distribute an anti-discrimination policy addressing reasonable accommodations; provide relevant training at its Winston-Salem facility; and post a notice of rights and obligations under the ADA.
Workplace equityAllegation
PepsiCo is accused of firing a blind employee
EEOC sues PepsiCo for failing to accommodate and firing a blind employee.
EEOC Sues PepsiCo for Failing to Accommodate and Firing a Blind Employee
– PepsiCo Beverage Sales, LLC violated federal law when it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to and fired a blind employee in its North Carolina call center, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
Corporate conductAllegation
PepsiCo is accused of agreeing to preferential wholesale pricing
PepsiCo is accused of entering into an agreement with Walmart that provided Walmart preferential wholesale pricing on Pepsi products while forcing other retailers to pay inflated prices, violating antitrust law.
PepsiCo and Walmart are facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging the two companies engaged in a long-running price-fixing scheme that artificially inflated the cost of Pepsi-branded soft drinks for consumers who shopped anywhere other than Walmart.
PepsiCo Accused of Price-Fixing Scheme That Allegedly Favored Walmart
Law.com Radar detected at least five antitrust class actions filed in New York and California federal courts following a U.S. judge's order that compelled the Federal Trade Commission to file public documents showcasing why former FTC Chair Lina Khan pursued a rare Robinson-Patman Act case against PepsiCo alleging the beverage giant unlawfully favored Walmart.
The proposed class action alleges that Walmart and PepsiCo entered into an agreement that gave Walmart preferential wholesale pricing on Pepsi products while forcing other retailers to pay inflated prices, which violates antitrust law.
Class action lawsuit filed against Walmart, PepsiCo over alleged price-fixing
Workplace equitySettlement
PepsiCo subsidiary settles religious discrimination lawsuit
Frito-Lay, Inc., a PepsiCo subsidiary, agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
– Frito-Lay, Inc., a Plano, Texas-based subsidiary of PepsiCo that manufactures and distributes snack foods, has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
In addition to paying $50,000 in monetary relief, Frito-Lay will provide specialized training on reasonable accommodation processes to human resources personnel, managers and employees; require all accommodation requests to be reviewed and decided by PepsiCo regional staff with specialized knowledge of Title VII; and report requests to accommodate an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice and the resolution of these requests to EEOC.
PPC also said PepsiCo's website uses misleading language about the corporation's dedication to sustainability despite practices that suggest otherwise.
Corporate conductOfficial statement
U.S. lawmakers pressed PepsiCo and the Federal Trade Commission on whether Pepsi used discriminatory pricing practices favoring Walmart over smaller retailers
The official statement involving PepsiCo (Pepsi) concerns smaller retailers.
– U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, and the co-chairs of the House Monopoly Busters Caucus — Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), and Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) — led lawmakers in pressing PepsiCo (Pepsi) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on whether Pepsi used discriminatory pricing practices that favored Walmart over smaller retailers and raised questions about possible political motivations in the FTC’s decision to dismiss its price discrimination lawsuit against the company.
Workplace equitySettlement
PepsiCo settles ADA accommodation violations
PepsiCo settles by being enjoined from failing to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA, must work with an expert to ensure software accessibility for visually impaired employees at Winston-Salem, and provide periodic progress reports to the EEOC.
Under the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, PepsiCo is enjoined from failing to provide a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA; must work with an expert to ensure that certain software applications at the Winston-Salem facility will be accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; make periodic progress reports to the EEOC; maintain and distribute an anti-discrimination policy addressing reasonable accommodations; provide relevant training at its Winston-Salem facility; and post a notice of rights and obligations under the ADA.
Corporate conductRecall
PepsiCo recalls Lay's Bugles and Wokkels chips
PepsiCo Netherlands is recalling Lay's Bugles and Wokkels chips due to contamination with toxic non-food-grade mineral oil during the packaging process.
PepsiCo is recalling these popular chips due to a contamination risk.
PepsiCo Netherlands has recalled several flavors of Lay's Bugles and Wokkels chips after a toxic non-food-grade mineral oil contaminated the chips during the packaging process.
PepsiCo Netherlands is recalling Lay's Bugles and Wokkels chips due to contamination with toxic non-food-grade mineral oil during the packaging process.
Corporate conductAllegation
The FTC petitioned for the removal of redactions in a complaint against PepsiCo regarding alleged RPA infractions
However, the FTC has signalled its intention to petition for the removal of these redactions to fully expose the extent of PepsiCo's alleged RPA infractions and their impact on competitor pricing.
However, the FTC has signalled its intention to petition for the removal of these redactions to fully expose the extent of PepsiCo's alleged RPA infractions and their impact on competitor pricing.
US FTC sues PepsiCo over alleged preferential price deal with Walmart
Corporate conductAllegation
PepsiCo is accused of health halo marketing statements
PepsiCo is accused of making health halo marketing statements that are false, deceptive, and unlawful due to material omissions about added sugars in its products.
As set forth above, PepsiCo’s marketing misleads consumers about the true qualities and characteristics of Gatorade Protein Bars—which, instead of enhancing athleticism and/or overall fitness and well-being by providing essential nutrients that its consumers are missing and/or which they require to build muscle—a claim that PepsiCo markets as supported by sports science no less— is instead saturated with added sugars.
To the contrary, PepsiCo omits any reference to sugar as the key characterizing ingredient from the Protein Bar name, and then piles on the deception with multiple other protein- related health and wellbeing claims, such as “Backed by Science,” along with emblazoning the logos of professional sports leagues—who members are virtually the fittest people on the planet—on the Product’s PDP.
PepsiCo’s labeling and marketing of Gatorade Protein Bars is likely to deceive Class Members about the value of the Product as beneficial to their athleticism and/or health and/or well- being.
As part of its deception, PepsiCo includes the word protein in the Product name— PROTEIN BAR—without any reference to the Product’s primary characterizing ingredient—sugar.
PepsiCo’s labeling and marketing of Gatorade Protein Bars, as alleged herein, constitute “deceptive” acts and practices, as such conduct misled Plaintiff Zurl and other members of the New York Class, as to the nutritional character, value, and/or healthfulness of Gatorade Protein Bars.
PepsiCo’s labeling, marketing, and advertising of Gatorade Protein Bars, as alleged herein, are “misleading in a material respect,” and thus “false advertising,” as they falsely represent Gatorade Protein Bars as beneficial to athleticism and overall health and well-being.
PepsiCo either knew or reasonably should have known that the name of and other statements on the packaging, labels, and other marketing of Gatorade Protein Bars were likely to deceive consumers.
The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of PepsiCo, as alleged herein, constitute “unlawful” business acts and practices in that they violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) and its implementing regulations, including, at least, the following sections: a. 21 U.S.C. § 343, which deems food misbranded when the label contains a statement that is “false or misleading in any particular,” with “misleading” defined to “take[] into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material”; b.
As alleged herein, PepsiCo, in its labeling of Gatorade Protein Bars, makes “false [and] misleading advertising claim[s],” as it deceives consumers about the value of the Product as beneficial to overall athleticism and/or health or well-being, and/or its true qualities and characteristics.
PepsiCo, with its Gatorade Protein Bars, capitalizes on this fraudulent advertising trend—with intensive and misleading marketing about the purported benefits of protein and/or the advantages of consuming its protein-fortified Product to enhance general fitness, athleticism and impliedly, overall well-being and/or health—all notwithstanding its high added sugars content.
Collectively as well as individually, PepsiCo’s health halo marketing statements are false, deceptive, and unlawful, including with respect to material omissions about the Product’s primary characterizing ingredient—added sugars.