Shook Hardy Bacon Shook Hardy Bacon Menu


Success fosters insight; insight informs success. Our representative matters look beyond the immediate solution to the next challenge facing your business and industry.

Of course, past outcomes afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.

Filter By:
Success | Food, Beverage and Agribusiness

California Jury Finds Energy Drinks Did Not Cause Plaintiff Injury

Success | Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

Shook Attorneys Obtain Dismissal for Multivitamin Manufacturer

A Missouri federal court granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against Source Naturals, Inc., maker of Life Force® multivitamins, alleging that the company misrepresented the amount of vitamins and nutrients in the product on the label.

Success | Food, Beverage and Agribusiness

Honey Litigation Settled Favorably

Shook, Hardy & Bacon defended multiple consumer class actions in which plaintiffs claimed grocery retailers violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by failing to disclose whether any pollen was removed from honey products during ordinary processing.

Success | Food, Beverage and Agribusiness

Shook Public Policy Group Spearheads Victory in Texas Supreme Court on Damages in Pet Injury Cases

Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s Public Policy Group contributed to a favorable outcome for animal drug manufacturers in the Supreme Court of Texas, which ruled in Strickland v. Medlen that emotion-based damages, including loss of companionship and sentimental damages, are not permitted in pet injury claims in Texas. 

Success | Food, Beverage and Agribusiness

Representation of "0 Grams of Trans Fat" Is Not Misleading, Court Finds

Shook successfully defended Hostess Brands by obtaining dismissal of a case alleging that label claims made about trans fat were misleading.

Success | Food, Beverage and Agribusiness

Court Finds "Original Formula" Soda Marketing Not Deceptive

The Coca-Cola Company faced a lawsuit alleging that the marketing of its Coca-Cola Classic was deceptive under the Illinois consumer protection statute.  The plaintiffs argued that the company could not represent its soda as "original formula" because it had switched out table sugar in favor of high-fructose corn syrup and sought class certification.