Target Mac And Cheese Lawsuit, No Preservatives Claims

Target Corporation is facing a putative class action alleging that it misled shoppers by labeling certain Good & Gather and Market Pantry boxed macaroni and cheese products “No Artificial Preservatives” (and, on some boxes, “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives or Synthetic Colors”) even though the ingredient lists include citric acid, lactic acid powder and sodium phosphate.

The case raises a real legal question: can a food company advertise a product as free of (artificial) preservatives when its ingredients can perform preservative functions? The answer depends on what each ingredient actually does in the food, whether it is “artificial,” what the full package says and what a reasonable shopper would understand.

Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Item	Detail
Case	Vaughan v. Target Corp., No. 7:26-cv-09281
Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Judge	Nelson Stephen Román (as reported)
Filed	October 22, 2026
Plaintiff	Kiana Vaughan, Westchester County, New York
Defendant	Target Corporation (Minnesota corporation, Minneapolis headquarters)
Plaintiff’s counsel	Carlos F. Ramirez and Michael R. Reese, Reese LLP
Brands	Good & Gather and Market Pantry
Ingredients challenged	Citric acid, lactic acid powder, sodium phosphate
Claims	New York GBL §349, GBL §350, unjust enrichment
Proposed class	Nationwide class plus a New York subclass (as reported)
Class certified?	No
Settlement, claim form or deadline	None

Important: This is a putative class action, not an approved settlement. A filing does not show that Target broke the law or that any shopper is owed money.

Which Target Good & Gather and Market Pantry Mac and Cheese Products Are Named in the Lawsuit?

The complaint identifies eight boxed products, plus others it says are substantially similar.

Good & Gather

White Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese
Shells & Aged Cheddar Macaroni and Cheese
Shells & White Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese
Elbows & Classic Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese
Macaroni & Cheese

Market Pantry

Macaroni & Cheese
Macaroni & Cheese Spirals
Deluxe Shells Macaroni & Cheese

Challenged statements include “No Artificial Preservatives” and “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives or Synthetic Colors.” Some packages also reference organic pasta, which the complaint says reinforces an impression of clean, high-quality ingredients.

“No artificial preservatives” is not identical to “no preservatives.” The exact wording of each box matters, so check your own packaging rather than assuming every Target mac and cheese is covered.

Why Is Kiana Vaughan Suing Target Over Mac and Cheese Labels?

Vaughan alleges she bought mainly Good & Gather White Cheddar and Shells & White Cheddar (and occasionally yellow cheddar) for roughly three years, ending around fall 2025. She says she relied on the front-label preservative statements and the Good & Gather branding.

Her theory is that shoppers pay premiums for preservative-free foods and that Target’s labels created a false impression because the recipes contain ingredients that function as preservatives. She says she and class members paid a price premium or bought products they would otherwise have skipped.

She seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution or disgorgement, actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and a jury trial.

Are Citric Acid, Lactic Acid Powder and Sodium Phosphate Preservatives in Target’s Mac and Cheese?

This is the central scientific and legal dispute. An ingredient can have several technical purposes, and appearing on a label does not prove it acts as a preservative in that product.

Is Citric Acid a Preservative Under FDA Rules?

The FDA’s food-substances inventory lists citric acid with several technical effects, including antimicrobial agent, antioxidant, flavor enhancer, pH-control agent and sequestrant. The complaint also points to a 2010 FDA warning letter to Chiquita Brands that cited failure to declare citric acid as a preservative, and says roughly 99% of commercial citric acid is made by fermentation with the fungus Aspergillus niger.

Target can respond that citric acid is multifunctional and that its role in this particular recipe is flavor or acidity, not preservation.

Is Lactic Acid Powder a Preservative?

The FDA identifies lactic acid as having an antimicrobial technical effect, along with pH control and flavor enhancement. Vaughan says this makes it a preservative under ordinary understanding. Target may argue its purpose in the recipe is different.

Is Sodium Phosphate a Preservative?

“Sodium phosphate” covers several salts (mono-, di- and tribasic), used for pH control, emulsification, sequestration and stabilization. The complaint says these functions are tied to shelf life. Which specific phosphate is in each product, and what it does there, will be evidence-heavy questions.

Why Ingredient Function Matters in Vaughan v. Target

The FDA inventory describes what an ingredient can do. It does not prove it performs every listed function in every food. Vaughan will likely need product-specific evidence such as formulation records and expert testimony.

Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit, Good & Gather and Market Pantry No Preservatives Claims Challenged in Vaughan v. Target Corp

What Federal Food Labeling Laws Apply to the Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit?

What Does 21 U.S.C. §343(a) Say About Misleading Food Labels?

Under Section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. §343(a)), food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Listing an ingredient somewhere on the package does not automatically cure a misleading front label.

What Does 21 U.S.C. §343(k) Require for Chemical Preservatives?

Section 403(k) (21 U.S.C. §343(k)) requires labeling of food containing artificial flavoring, artificial coloring or a chemical preservative, subject to regulations and exceptions.

How Does 21 C.F.R. §101.22 Define a Chemical Preservative?

Under 21 C.F.R. §101.22(a)(5), a chemical preservative is any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration. Under 21 C.F.R. §101.22(j), a chemical preservative must generally be declared by its common or usual name together with a separate description of its function, such as “preservative” or “to retard spoilage.” This makes the ingredient’s real function central.

Can Vaughan Sue Target Directly Under the FDCA?

No. 21 U.S.C. §337(a) reserves FDCA enforcement to the federal government, so private plaintiffs proceed under state law. That is why Vaughan relies on New York statutes, with federal rules as background.

Could 21 U.S.C. §343-1 Preempt Vaughan’s New York Claims Against Target?

Possibly. 21 U.S.C. §343-1(a)(3) bars states from imposing labeling requirements for chemical preservatives that are not identical to §343(k). Target may argue preemption. Vaughan can respond that she is enforcing a ban on misleading marketing statements Target chose to make, not demanding a different mandatory disclosure. The court has not ruled.

Does “No Artificial Preservatives” Mean the Same Thing as “No Preservatives” on Target’s Mac and Cheese?

No. “No preservatives” is the broader claim. “No artificial preservatives” may leave room for a preservative that is not artificial. That creates two questions:

Does the ingredient actually function as a preservative in the food?
If so, is it “artificial,” or does the whole package nonetheless communicate that the product contains no preservatives?

Vaughan argues shoppers do not parse “artificial” versus “naturally derived,” especially next to the Good & Gather brand and organic messaging. Target will likely argue that the exact words are accurate. Source, manufacturing process and the full package design may all matter.

What New York Laws Does Vaughan Use Against Target?

What Is New York General Business Law §349?

GBL §349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business. A plaintiff generally must show (1) consumer-oriented conduct, (2) that is materially misleading to a reasonable consumer and (3) injury caused by it (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (1995)). Reliance is not required as in common-law fraud (Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24 (2000)).

Damages under §349(h): injunctive relief, plus actual damages or $50, whichever is greater. For willful or knowing violations a court may increase damages up to three times actual damages, capped at $1,000. Attorneys’ fees may be awarded.

What Is New York General Business Law §350 and §350-a?

GBL §350 prohibits false advertising, and §350-a defines it to include labeling that is misleading in a material respect, considering both statements and material omissions.

Damages under §350-e: actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, with possible increased damages up to $10,000 for willful or knowing violations, plus attorneys’ fees.

These are statutory ceilings and options, not guaranteed payments to every shopper.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for Vaughan’s GBL Claims?

GBL §349 and §350 claims are generally subject to a three-year limitations period under CPLR 214(2) (Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 96 N.Y.2d 201 (2001)). Her three-year purchase history fits within that framework, but the class period proposed in the complaint should be confirmed.

What Is Unjust Enrichment Under New York Law?

Unjust enrichment asks whether Target was enriched at the plaintiff’s expense and whether equity requires restitution. Courts often dismiss it when it merely duplicates the statutory claims.

Why Does CPLR 901(b) Matter in Federal Court?

CPLR 901(b) bars class actions in New York state court for statutory minimum or penalty damages unless the statute expressly allows it. In federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs instead (Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010)), which is why GBL class actions are commonly filed in federal court.

Why Is Vaughan v. Target in Federal Court, and What Procedural Rules Apply?

Jurisdiction rests on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d): more than 100 proposed class members, minimal diversity and more than $5 million in controversy. That figure is a jurisdictional threshold, not a settlement estimate. Venue is alleged to be proper because Target markets and sells the products in the Southern District of New York.

The complaint also invokes Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud-type allegations. Target may move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

What Is the Reasonable Consumer Standard in Second Circuit Food Labeling Cases?

New York’s GBL claims turn on whether a reasonable consumer would be misled. Several Second Circuit decisions shape that analysis:

Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013): the test is objective, asking whether a reasonable consumer would be misled, and cannot rest on an unreasonable reading.
Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018): a prominent front-label claim can mislead even where the ingredient list is accurate, because consumers are not required to check the back panel. This is the Second Circuit’s closest parallel to Williams v. Gerber and supports Vaughan’s front-label theory.
Berni v. Barilla G. e R. Fratelli S.p.A., 964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020): addresses price-premium injury and standing to seek an injunction, both relevant to Vaughan’s economic-injury and injunctive-relief requests.

How Have Courts Decided Similar “No Preservatives” Lawsuits Over Citric Acid and Phosphates?

Outcomes have been mixed. Some motions to dismiss were denied where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that ingredients function as preservatives, and others were narrowed on preemption, standing or reasonable-consumer grounds.

Mason v. Reed’s Inc., 515 F. Supp. 3d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2021): challenge to “No Preservatives” claims on beverages containing citric acid, showing that allegations about the ingredient’s function in the specific product matter.
Simeone v. T. Marzetti Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2023): New York false-advertising claims can turn on the actual purpose and effect of ingredients.
Valencia v. Snapple Beverage Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2024): distinguishes whether an ingredient acts as a preservative from whether it is “artificial,” and shows unsupported assertions about manufacturing are not enough.
Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 1:23-cv-16596 (N.D. Ill. 2024): a macaroni and cheese case in which citric acid and sodium phosphates were alleged to act as artificial preservatives. It is persuasive only, not binding in New York.

What this means for Vaughan: she needs product-specific evidence of function, not just general statements that these ingredients can preserve food.

What Defenses Could Target Raise in the Mac and Cheese Lawsuit?

The ingredients are multifunctional (flavor, pH control, texture) and are generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
“No artificial preservatives” is accurate if the ingredients are not artificial.
Ingredients are fully disclosed on the box.
Federal preemption under 21 U.S.C. §343-1(a)(3).
No cognizable economic injury or price premium.
Individual issues defeat class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3).

No court has resolved any of these points.

Is Target Mac and Cheese Recalled or Unsafe?

No recall is reported. This is a labeling and advertising dispute, and nothing in the complaint establishes that the products are unsafe. An ingredient can be lawful for food use and still be the subject of a misleading-advertising claim. Anyone with a safety concern should check FDA recall notices rather than treat a private lawsuit as a safety warning.

Who Could Be in the Proposed Vaughan v. Target Class?

The case is reported to seek a nationwide class and a New York subclass of purchasers within the applicable limitations periods. That is a proposed definition, not a court-approved one. The precise wording, cutoff dates and subclass terms should be confirmed against the complaint.

A buyer would likely need to have purchased one of the specifically challenged Good & Gather or Market Pantry varieties. Buying a different Target product or another brand of mac and cheese does not automatically qualify.

What Should Target Mac and Cheese Buyers Keep?

The box, or clear photos of every side
The exact product name and variety
Ingredient list and front-of-package claims
UPC code
Purchase dates and store location
Receipts, order confirmations or card records

These may help if a class is later certified, but they guarantee nothing.

Why Might Vaughan Struggle to Certify a Class Against Target Under Rule 23?

Certification requires numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy under Rule 23(a), and for damages classes, predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3). Target may argue that eight products with different recipes and packaging, and varied shopper experiences, raise individual questions. Under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), Vaughan will also need a damages model that fits her theory of liability, such as a price-premium model. Choice-of-law differences may complicate a nationwide class.

What Is the Current Status of Vaughan v. Target Corp.?

The case was filed on October 22, 2026. The docket records reviewed show the complaint, civil cover sheet, request for summons and summons issuance. As of November 7, 2026, none of the records reviewed shows:

A class certification order
A settlement
A settlement administrator
A claim form
A payment amount or claim deadline
A ruling on whether Target’s labels were misleading
An answer or motion to dismiss from Target

Check the federal docket on Justia or PACER for later filings.

What Happens Next in the Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit?

Service and Target’s response.
A possible motion to dismiss on reasonable-consumer, preemption, injury or pleading grounds.
Discovery into formulations, ingredient function, packaging and pricing.
Class certification briefing under Rule 23.
Settlement (which requires court approval) or trial.

No payment, claim deadline or claim process exists at this stage.

Does the Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit Offer a Refund or Claim Form?

No. There is no settlement website, administrator, claim form, claim deadline or payout. Avoid sites promising guaranteed compensation for this case.

Have There Been Other Target Food-Labeling Lawsuits?

Yes. These are separate cases and do not prove the allegations in Vaughan:

Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Target mac and cheese class action lawsuit?

Yes. Kiana Vaughan filed Vaughan v. Target Corp., No. 7:26-cv-09281, on October 22, 2026, in the Southern District of New York. It is a putative class action over preservative-related claims on Good & Gather and Market Pantry mac and cheese.

Which Target mac and cheese products are involved?

Five Good & Gather and three Market Pantry boxed varieties, including White Cheddar Macaroni & Cheese, Shells & Aged Cheddar, Macaroni & Cheese Spirals and Deluxe Shells.

What ingredients does Vaughan challenge?

Citric acid, lactic acid powder and sodium phosphate.

Are citric acid and lactic acid always preservatives?

No. Both have several technical functions, including acidity control and flavor. Their actual role in the specific recipe matters.

Does the lawsuit mean Target mac and cheese is unsafe?

No. It concerns labeling and advertising. No recall is reported.

Which New York laws does Vaughan rely on?

General Business Law §349 (deceptive practices), §350 (false advertising) and common-law unjust enrichment.

Can I claim money from the Target lawsuit?

Not currently. No settlement or claim form exists.

Do I need a receipt?

There is no claim process yet, so no receipt requirement. Keeping receipts and packaging may help later.

Has the class been certified?

No.

Who represents Kiana Vaughan?

Carlos F. Ramirez and Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP.

Who is the judge in Vaughan v. Target?

The case was reported as assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Román.

When will the Target lawsuit settle?

No settlement date exists. The case is at the pleadings stage.

Bottom Line on the Target Mac and Cheese Lawsuit

Vaughan v. Target Corp. tests whether front-of-package “no artificial preservatives” claims can mislead shoppers when the recipe includes citric acid, lactic acid powder and sodium phosphate. The outcome will likely turn on what those ingredients actually do in each product, the artificial-versus-natural distinction, the full package presentation, federal preemption and whether Vaughan can show economic injury and certify a class.

For now, there is no settlement, payout, claim form or deadline. Shoppers who bought a named product should keep their records, check the docket and ignore sites promising guaranteed money.

Sources and Legal References

Court records and reporting

Federal food labeling law

FDA ingredient information

New York law

Court decisions

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. The complaint’s allegations have not been established by a court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against public court docket records, press reporting on the complaint, FDA ingredient and regulatory information, and the cited federal and New York statutes, as of November 7, 2026. Last Updated: November 7, 2026.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.