Deep River Snacks (Old Lyme Gourmet Co.) agreed to a $4 million class action settlement after consumers alleged that certain Deep River potato chips were marketed in a misleading way. The lawsuit focuses on packages bearing a prominent “Non‑GMO Ingredients” graphic sold in the U.S. between February 2, 2017 and December 6, 2024; shoppers say that label implied the chips were verified as non‑GMO—similar to how independent programs like the Non‑GMO Project certify products—when, according to the complaint, some products actually contained GMO ingredients. The case was filed because food labeling claims can meaningfully influence purchasing decisions and prices, especially for consumers trying to avoid genetically modified ingredients. While the company denies wrongdoing, the settlement creates a compensation fund and sets up an “open” claims process with modest payments available even without receipts (with higher potential payments if proof of purchase is provided), reflecting how difficult it can be for people to document low-cost grocery purchases over many years. Beyond refunds, the significance is the pressure it puts on brands to ensure that front-of-package claims don’t suggest third‑party certification or a guarantee the product can’t support. More broadly, this dispute fits a common pattern in consumer protection litigation: lawsuits challenging “natural,” “organic,” “non‑GMO,” or similar marketing statements that plaintiffs say overpromise or confuse. In the U.S., the FDA and FTC police deceptive advertising, and state consumer-protection laws often provide the main vehicle for these cases; at the same time, there is no single, uniform federal definition for “non‑GMO” on packaging, and third‑party seals carry their own standards and licensing rules—making it especially important that companies substantiate claims and avoid graphics or wording that could be read as an independent certification when it’s not