{"id":681,"date":"2021-09-02T16:45:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-02T16:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/farmstand.chee.studio\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/"},"modified":"2026-09-12T02:26:04","modified_gmt":"2026-09-12T02:26:04","slug":"hormel-deceptive-advertising","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/","title":{"rendered":"Tribunal de apelaciones env\u00eda a juicio el caso de publicidad enga\u00f1osa de Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em>La Corte de Apelaciones de D.C. dictamina que el Animal Legal Defense Fund puede proseguir con sus demandas &nbsp;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hoy, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Distrito de Columbia emiti\u00f3 un fallo que revive el caso del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales contra la publicidad de \u2019Natural Choice\u201c de Hormel Foods, y remite el asunto a juicio. El tribunal de apelaciones revoc\u00f3 la decisi\u00f3n de un tribunal inferior, al determinar que el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales tiene legitimaci\u00f3n activa para presentar sus demandas por publicidad enga\u00f1osa contra Hormel Foods, y que dichas demandas no quedan desplazadas por las leyes federales de etiquetado de productos animales. La demanda, presentada en junio de 2016 junto con Public Justice y Richman Law Group, alega que Hormel est\u00e1 enga\u00f1ando a los consumidores a trav\u00e9s de la publicidad de su marca de fiambres y tocino Natural Choice, en violaci\u00f3n de la Ley de Procedimientos de Protecci\u00f3n al Consumidor del D.C. (DCCPPA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hormel anuncia estos productos como naturales a pesar de que los animales son criados en granjas industriales, nunca ven la luz del d\u00eda, reciben antibi\u00f3ticos innecesarios y otros qu\u00edmicos, y son maltratados., <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2019-04-10\/hormel-advertising-suit-reveals-what-natural-meat-really-means\">a 2019 <em>Bloomberg<\/em> informe<\/a> revelado.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En un fallo hist\u00f3rico para la protecci\u00f3n de los consumidores de todo tipo, el Tribunal dictamin\u00f3 por primera vez que la DCCPPA permite a las organizaciones sin fines de lucro que re\u00fanan los requisitos demandar para hacer cumplir la DCCPPA sin tener que demostrar legitimaci\u00f3n activa en los tribunales federales. Especialmente dado el est\u00e1ndar cada vez m\u00e1s restrictivo para la legitimaci\u00f3n federal, esta decisi\u00f3n es una victoria importante para los consumidores: mantiene abiertas las puertas de los tribunales de D.C. para las demandas de los consumidores.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Segundo, el Tribunal tambi\u00e9n dictamin\u00f3 que las demandas del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales no est\u00e1n exentas por las leyes federales de etiquetado de carne y aves, debido a que las leyes federales se ocupan \u00fanicamente de <em>etiquetado<\/em>. El Tribunal sostuvo que las reclamaciones de la Animal Legal Defense Fund bajo la DCCPPA de que Hormel <em>publicidad<\/em> son enga\u00f1osos no est\u00e1n afectados por las leyes federales de etiquetado de carne.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cLa decisi\u00f3n de hoy demuestra que nuestra demanda tiene fundamentos jur\u00eddicos para seguir adelante, y esperamos continuar con nuestro caso contra Hormel\u201d, dice <strong>Director Ejecutivo del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales Stephen Wells<\/strong>. \u201cLos consumidores merecen transparencia en la agricultura industrial animal, y nuestra demanda busca garantizar que al p\u00fablico no se le enga\u00f1e con el lavado de imagen humanitario al tomar decisiones sobre los alimentos\u201d.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cEl fallo de hoy no solo afirma que esta demanda para detener la flagrante publicidad enga\u00f1osa de Hormel puede continuar, sino que beneficiar\u00e1 a los consumidores y a la integridad del mercado en una amplia gama de cuestiones\u201d,\u201d <strong>Abogada s\u00e9nior de Public Justice, Leah Nicholls, abogada del Animal Legal Defense Fund en el caso<\/strong>, dijo. \u201cEl Tribunal de Apelaciones del D.C. se\u00f1ala acertadamente que cualquier organizaci\u00f3n sin fines de lucro de defensa calificada puede utilizar los estatutos de protecci\u00f3n al consumidor del distrito para detener campa\u00f1as de publicidad enga\u00f1osa en nombre de los ciudadanos del Distrito, incluso si se considera que el contenido de la etiqueta de un producto est\u00e1 suplantado por la regulaci\u00f3n federal\u201d.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La demanda de 2016 se present\u00f3 tras una investigaci\u00f3n encubierta del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales que revel\u00f3 un importante descuido de los animales y violaciones de las leyes que protegen tanto a los consumidores como a los animales en una granja industrial con sede en Nebraska propiedad de The Maschhoffs, LLC, un importante productor de cerdos con sede en Illinois y uno de los mayores proveedores de Hormel Foods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Para m\u00e1s informaci\u00f3n, visite aldf.org.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">###<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Sobre el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>El Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales fue fundado en 1979 para proteger las vidas y promover los intereses de los animales a trav\u00e9s del sistema legal. Para cumplir con esta misi\u00f3n, el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales presenta demandas de alto impacto para proteger a los animales contra el da\u00f1o; ofrece asistencia jur\u00eddica gratuita y capacitaci\u00f3n a los fiscales para garantizar que los maltratadores de animales sean castigados por sus delitos; apoya legislaci\u00f3n estricta de protecci\u00f3n animal y combate la legislaci\u00f3n perjudicial; y proporciona recursos y oportunidades a estudiantes de derecho y profesionales para avanzar en el campo emergente del derecho animal. Para obtener m\u00e1s informaci\u00f3n, visite <a href=\"http:\/\/aldf.org\/\">aldf.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Sobre la Justicia P\u00fablica<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Public Justice promueve demandas de alto impacto para combatir la injusticia social y econ\u00f3mica, proteger la sostenibilidad de la Tierra y desafiar la conducta corporativa depredadora y los abusos gubernamentales. El Proyecto de Alimentos de Public Justice apoya a las comunidades rurales, agricultores, trabajadores y aliados para luchar por un sistema de ganader\u00eda industrial que sea justo, humano, sostenible y regenerativo.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hoy, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Distrito de Columbia emiti\u00f3 un fallo que revive el caso del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales contra la publicidad de \u2019Natural Choice\u201c de Hormel Foods, y remite el asunto a juicio. El tribunal de apelaciones revoc\u00f3 la decisi\u00f3n de un tribunal inferior, al determinar que el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales tiene legitimaci\u00f3n activa para presentar sus demandas por publicidad enga\u00f1osa contra Hormel Foods, y que dichas demandas no quedan desplazadas por las leyes federales de etiquetado de productos animales. La demanda, presentada en junio de 2016 junto con Public Justice y Richman Law Group, alega que Hormel est\u00e1 enga\u00f1ando a los consumidores a trav\u00e9s de la publicidad de su marca de fiambres y tocino Natural Choice, en violaci\u00f3n de la Ley de Procedimientos de Protecci\u00f3n al Consumidor del D.C. (DCCPPA).<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[24,44],"issue":[19],"class_list":["post-681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-press-releases","tag-consumer-rights","tag-labeling","issue-consumer-rights"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial - Farmstand<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Today, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision reviving the Animal Legal Defense Fund\u2019s case against Hormel Foods\u2019 \u201cNatural Choice\u201d advertising, and sending the matter to trial. The appeals court reversed a lower court\u2019s ruling, finding that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has standing to pursue its false advertising claims against Hormel Foods, and that those claims are not displaced by federal animal products labeling laws. The lawsuit, filed in June 2016 together with Public Justice and the Richman Law Group, alleges Hormel is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice brand of lunch meats and bacon, in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA).\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_ES\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial - Farmstand\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Today, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision reviving the Animal Legal Defense Fund\u2019s case against Hormel Foods\u2019 \u201cNatural Choice\u201d advertising, and sending the matter to trial. The appeals court reversed a lower court\u2019s ruling, finding that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has standing to pursue its false advertising claims against Hormel Foods, and that those claims are not displaced by federal animal products labeling laws. The lawsuit, filed in June 2016 together with Public Justice and the Richman Law Group, alleges Hormel is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice brand of lunch meats and bacon, in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA).\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Farmstand\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/farmstandorg\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/SEO-image.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"675\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lars Faye\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lars Faye\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lars Faye\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6e2ae01fb518338b07ab867b347b9dee\"},\"headline\":\"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":655,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"consumer rights\",\"labeling\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Press Releases\"],\"inLanguage\":\"es-ES\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/\",\"name\":\"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial - Farmstand\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"Today, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision reviving the Animal Legal Defense Fund\u2019s case against Hormel Foods\u2019 \u201cNatural Choice\u201d advertising, and sending the matter to trial. The appeals court reversed a lower court\u2019s ruling, finding that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has standing to pursue its false advertising claims against Hormel Foods, and that those claims are not displaced by federal animal products labeling laws. The lawsuit, filed in June 2016 together with Public Justice and the Richman Law Group, alleges Hormel is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice brand of lunch meats and bacon, in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA).\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"es-ES\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"Farmstand\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es-ES\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Farmstand\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es-ES\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/farmstand-logo.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/farmstand-logo.svg\",\"width\":150,\"height\":103,\"caption\":\"Farmstand\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/farmstandorg\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/farmstandorg\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/farmstandorg\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/bsky.app\\\/profile\\\/farmstand.bsky.social\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/farmstand.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6e2ae01fb518338b07ab867b347b9dee\",\"name\":\"Lars Faye\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es-ES\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Lars Faye\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tribunal de Apelaciones env\u00eda a juicio caso de publicidad enga\u00f1osa de Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d - Farmstand","description":"Hoy, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Distrito de Columbia emiti\u00f3 un fallo que revive el caso del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales contra la publicidad de \u2019Natural Choice\u201c de Hormel Foods, y remite el asunto a juicio. El tribunal de apelaciones revoc\u00f3 la decisi\u00f3n de un tribunal inferior, al determinar que el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales tiene legitimaci\u00f3n activa para presentar sus demandas por publicidad enga\u00f1osa contra Hormel Foods, y que dichas demandas no quedan desplazadas por las leyes federales de etiquetado de productos animales. La demanda, presentada en junio de 2016 junto con Public Justice y Richman Law Group, alega que Hormel est\u00e1 enga\u00f1ando a los consumidores a trav\u00e9s de la publicidad de su marca de fiambres y tocino Natural Choice, en violaci\u00f3n de la Ley de Procedimientos de Protecci\u00f3n al Consumidor del D.C. (DCCPPA).","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/","og_locale":"es_ES","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial - Farmstand","og_description":"Today, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision reviving the Animal Legal Defense Fund\u2019s case against Hormel Foods\u2019 \u201cNatural Choice\u201d advertising, and sending the matter to trial. The appeals court reversed a lower court\u2019s ruling, finding that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has standing to pursue its false advertising claims against Hormel Foods, and that those claims are not displaced by federal animal products labeling laws. The lawsuit, filed in June 2016 together with Public Justice and the Richman Law Group, alleges Hormel is misleading consumers through the advertising of its Natural Choice brand of lunch meats and bacon, in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA).","og_url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/","og_site_name":"Farmstand","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/farmstandorg\/","article_published_time":"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":675,"url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/SEO-image.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Lars Faye","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lars Faye","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/"},"author":{"name":"Lars Faye","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#\/schema\/person\/6e2ae01fb518338b07ab867b347b9dee"},"headline":"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial","datePublished":"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/"},"wordCount":655,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#organization"},"keywords":["consumer rights","labeling"],"articleSection":["Press Releases"],"inLanguage":"es-ES"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/","url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/","name":"Tribunal de Apelaciones env\u00eda a juicio caso de publicidad enga\u00f1osa de Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d - Farmstand","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-09-02T16:45:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-12T02:26:04+00:00","description":"Hoy, el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Distrito de Columbia emiti\u00f3 un fallo que revive el caso del Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales contra la publicidad de \u2019Natural Choice\u201c de Hormel Foods, y remite el asunto a juicio. El tribunal de apelaciones revoc\u00f3 la decisi\u00f3n de un tribunal inferior, al determinar que el Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales tiene legitimaci\u00f3n activa para presentar sus demandas por publicidad enga\u00f1osa contra Hormel Foods, y que dichas demandas no quedan desplazadas por las leyes federales de etiquetado de productos animales. La demanda, presentada en junio de 2016 junto con Public Justice y Richman Law Group, alega que Hormel est\u00e1 enga\u00f1ando a los consumidores a trav\u00e9s de la publicidad de su marca de fiambres y tocino Natural Choice, en violaci\u00f3n de la Ley de Procedimientos de Protecci\u00f3n al Consumidor del D.C. (DCCPPA).","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"es-ES","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/hormel-deceptive-advertising\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appeals Court Sends Hormel \u201cNatural Choice\u201d Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/","name":"Puesto de granja","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es-ES"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#organization","name":"Puesto de granja","url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es-ES","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/farmstand-logo.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/farmstand-logo.svg","width":150,"height":103,"caption":"Farmstand"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/farmstandorg\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/farmstandorg\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/farmstandorg\/","https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/farmstand.bsky.social"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/#\/schema\/person\/6e2ae01fb518338b07ab867b347b9dee","name":"Lars Faye","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es-ES","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/cc2e219a01956d769cc2fce0dbf5a28f7aea8462a2eef1eef472c3b5af3be075?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Lars Faye"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=681"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2258,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/681\/revisions\/2258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=681"},{"taxonomy":"issue","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/farmstand.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue?post=681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}