A woman who bought Cap’N’Crunch Crunchberries cereal sued because she was disappointed when she found out that the supposed “crunchberries” were not actual fruit.

The plaintiff, Janine Sugawara, says shes bought the Cap’N’Crunch with crunchberries because she thought crunchberries were real fruit. She subsequently learned that the “berries” were actually nothing more than brightly colored cereal balls, and that the cereal contained no real fruit.

She sued on the grounds that the cereal advertised falsely. She reported that she was suing for herself, and every other consumer that had been “tricked” by the cereal company. According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word “berries” in the name, but also by an image on the front of the box, which features the product’s namesake, Cap’N’Crunch, aggressively “thrusting a spoonful of ‘Crunchberries’ at the prospective buyer.” The plaintiff brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and the California Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The judge for this trial said, “In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word ‘berries’ it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term ‘crunch.’ This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a ‘crunchberry.’ Furthermore, the ‘Crunchberries’ depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains ‘sweetened corn & oat cereal’ and that the cereal is ‘enlarged to show texture.’ Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist. . . . So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.”

Janine Sugawara received nothing when the judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the woman on May 21.

“In this case, . . . it is simply impossible for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint stating a claim based upon these facts. The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happen.”

There was not only a similar suit filed over the cereal Fruit Loops but in fact, the lawyers who sued over the Fruit Loops cereal were the same lawyers who filed the suit for the Cap’N’Crunch.