- August 9, 2026
- 11:48 pm
- World News
The purchase of Golda ice cream for 62 shekels turned into a collective process with a declared amount of about 350 million. NANews studied the court decision and found out why the main thing in this case is not the loud figure “13 times,” but the significance of two words on the showcase: “sugar-free.”
On August 9, 2026, the Central District Court in Lod allowed a class action lawsuit against Anita Glida Ltd., associated with the Golda ice cream chain. The decision in case No. 59986-02-24 “Yarkoni v. Anita Glida Ltd.” was made by Judge Iris Rabinovich-Baron. The representative of the group is Sol Yarkoni.
The Israeli media immediately highlighted the loudest figure of the case — about 350 million shekels. But the court did not oblige Golda to pay this money and did not determine the final amount of damage. 350 million is an estimate of the total damage claimed by the plaintiff’s side; the decision of August 9 means only one thing so far: the court allowed the claims to be considered as a class action.
And the whole story began with half a kilogram of ice cream costing 62 shekels.
Author of NANews Victoria Katsman for this material compared publications from N12/Mako and Arutz 7 with the full 27-page court decision. Katsman regularly analyzes for NANews situations where a loud figure or government decision eventually turns into a very specific question for an ordinary person — recently she explained, how a paid entry into the Tel Aviv agglomeration can work up to 37.5 shekels a day and what the proposed “VAT online” system will change for residents and businesses in Israel. Here the approach is the same: separate the headline from what is actually written in the document.
The purchase of Golda for 62 shekels, with which it all began
On January 3, 2024, Sol Yarkoni came to the Golda branch on Jabotinsky Street in Ramat Gan and bought half a kilogram of ice cream labeled “sugar-free”. According to her statement, the purchase cost 62 shekels, and she chose the product consciously — due to a low-carb ketogenic diet and health condition.
After Yarkoni ate the ice cream, she had doubts about its composition, and the product was sent for analysis to an accredited laboratory. The case materials mention two flavors — hazelnut and coffee. The studies presented by the applicant showed approximately 6.6 grams of lactose per 100 grams of product.
Here begins an important distinction that is lost in the wording “sugar was found in sugar-free ice cream.” Lactose is not an extraneous impurity accidentally entering the product: it is a natural milk sugar. And the parties to the process do not actually dispute either the presence of lactose in the ice cream in question or that lactose is classified as a sugar.
The dispute is about something else entirely: can you write “sugar-free” — ללא סוכר in front of the buyer with such a composition?
Where did the wording “13 times more sugar” come from
The plaintiff’s side compared the approximately 6.6 grams of lactose found with the 0.5 grams of sugars per 100 grams indicator used in food labeling rules to define a “sugar-free” product. Mathematically, the difference is indeed approximately 13.2 times.
This is where the headlines about Golda ice cream allegedly containing “13 times more allowed sugar” came from. But the full court decision shows why this phrase cannot be repeated without explanation.
The rules containing the 0.5-gram threshold directly relate to pre-packaged food products. The Golda ice cream, which became the subject of the case, was sold by weight, and the court directly noted that the relevant rules, judging by their wording, do not directly apply to such sales.
Therefore, it is correct to say not “Golda violated the norm by 13 times,” but otherwise: the laboratory analysis showed a figure approximately 13.2 times higher than the level with which the legislation associates the “sugar-free” designation for packaged products. The court considered this norm an important guideline in assessing what meaning an ordinary buyer might attribute to the words “sugar-free.”
For NANews — News of Israel this is one of the key details of the case. The loud “13 times” fits well into the headline, but without this reservation, it gives the reader a more unambiguous picture than exists in the court decision itself.
“Sugar-free” and “no added sugar” — not the same thing?
Anita Glida’s position is based on the fact that the buyer of dairy ice cream knows about the natural presence of lactose in milk. According to the company, the words “sugar-free” in such a context are perceived by the target audience not as a promise of the complete absence of all sugars, but as an indication that no added sugar was used for sweetening in the production of the ice cream.
The company also claimed that such terminology is common among other ice cream sellers. But the court noted: even if such a practice exists and Golda is not acting alone, this in itself does not exclude the possibility of misleading the consumer.
There is also another interesting detail. The defense presented examples of other dairy and ice cream products with comparable sugar content, including products associated with the Israeli Diabetes Association’s mark. The judge noted that the presented samples were not called “sugar-free”, and some dairy products separately explained that the sugar contained in them comes from milk.
It turns out the question can be formulated quite simply. If the manufacturer wanted to say “no added sugar”, should they have written it that way? Or is the buyer obliged to independently guess that the more categorical “sugar-free” actually means this?
The court has not yet given a final answer. But it considered the plaintiff’s position sufficiently substantiated for this question to be considered in a class action.
What the court has already decided and what still needs to be proven
The decision of August 9 is important not to turn into a final verdict against Golda. At the current stage, the court established that there is a reasonable possibility that the claim of misleading buyers will be accepted when the case is considered on its merits. This is the legal threshold for admitting a class action, not a final establishment of the company’s guilt.
The court included Golda and Anita customers who purchased the relevant products labeled “sugar-free” over the past seven years in the collective group. This applies to purchases both directly in ice cream shops and online orders.
The lawsuit is allowed to continue, in particular, on the grounds of alleged consumer deception, breach of established duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Among the stated demands are to stop the disputed labeling, refund the money for the relevant purchases with interest and indexation, and compensate for the alleged non-material damage.
That is, the court did not say “Golda owes 350 million,” but in fact: the issue is serious enough to be examined on behalf of a large group of consumers.
Where did the 350 million shekels come from
Sol Yarkoni’s personal material damage in the statement is estimated at 62 shekels — the cost of the ice cream she bought. But the plaintiffs calculate the claims not only based on the cost of one purchase but in relation to the entire potential group of buyers over a seven-year period.
In addition to the refund of the cost of goods, the applicant claims that buyers suffered non-material damage due to the alleged violation of their freedom of choice: they bought one product, believing they were getting exactly what was indicated on the showcase. Such damage was estimated by the plaintiff’s side at 300 shekels per group member.
It is this combination of claims that allowed the plaintiff’s side to estimate the overall scale of claims at approximately 350 million shekels. But at this stage, the court did not establish either the actual number of buyers entitled to compensation or its final amount.
This is fundamental: 350 million is a claim, not a court award.
The court did not recognize Golda ice cream as dangerous for diabetics
The topic of diabetes is present in the case, so it is especially easy to draw the wrong conclusion here. The plaintiff’s side presented the opinion of an internal medicine and diabetes specialist, while the defense presented its expert opinions, including on how people with diabetes account for lactose in dairy products.
However, the class action was not filed as a claim for compensation for medical harm. In the decision, the judge separately notes that despite the volume of health and diabetes arguments, compensation for physical harm to consumers was not required within this application, so the court did not resolve this issue.
Therefore, it cannot be written that the court recognized Golda ice cream as dangerous for diabetics. It has not been established that any specific person suffered medical harm.
The subject of the case is significantly narrower and simultaneously broader from the perspective of an ordinary buyer: could the labeling influence a person’s choice, regardless of whether they bought the product because of diabetes, diet, or simply because they wanted less sugar. The court separately noted that the potential group is not limited to people with diabetes.
There is another dispute in the case that almost disappeared from the news
Sugar is not the only claim. The plaintiff also claims that buyers were not sufficiently informed about the presence of polyol sugar substitutes in the product and the type of ice cream itself. For this part of the claims, she referred to Israeli standard 327.
Here arises a legal paradox. The mandatory official status of this standard was canceled on January 1, 2023, while Sol Yarkoni bought the ice cream only on January 3, 2024. The court directly acknowledges this.
But the collective group covers seven years, which means it includes the period when the standard still had mandatory status. Moreover, the court allows the possibility of considering the content of the previous standard when further examining some claims. Therefore, this issue has not completely disappeared from the class action.
And this is already significantly more complex than the formula “found 13 times more sugar.”
What is Golda: the Avital family business that became a huge network
Golda is one of the most well-known ice cream chains in Israel, but the brand’s history began long before the name Golda appeared. According to Calcalist and earlier family interviews, the business’s origins date back to the late 1990s when Anita Avital and her son Nir made ice cream by hand using family recipes. In 2002, brothers Nir and Adi Avital opened the first ice cream shop in Tel Aviv.
For several years, the family developed the Anita brand and simultaneously built a production base. In 2012, Golda appeared — a larger Israeli model that allowed for rapid network expansion through partner points. At the same time, Adi Avital previously explained to Globes that he does not consider this mechanism a classic franchise: the group primarily earns as a manufacturer and supplier of products for the network’s points.
Anita and Golda eventually went different ways. Anita became a more premium international brand, opening locations in the USA, Australia, Europe, and other countries, while Golda remained an Israeli network.
And the scales here are important. At its peak, Golda reached approximately 140 sales points. According to Calcalist as of July 13, 2026, the network now has 117 points in Israel; only in Tel Aviv, the number of branches decreased from about 20 to 9 during the network’s reduction.
So it’s not a dispute with one small ice cream shop. The legal process affects one of the most recognizable food brands in Israel and potentially a huge array of purchases over several years.
What happened after the class action was filed
The application for permission for a class action was filed on February 26, 2024. After the process began, the company removed the disputed types of ice cream from the lineup, but explained this step as a temporary precautionary measure, not an admission of responsibility. The court describes the company’s position in this way in the decision.
The decision of August 9, 2026, also ordered the payment of 40,000 shekels plus VAT to the group’s representative’s lawyers for work at the already completed stage. The company must do this within 60 days. This amount is a fee for the current stage of the process and is unrelated to the claimed 350 million shekels in compensation.
The court ordered the publication of a notice about the class action in major Israeli newspapers and on the defendant’s website. In addition, the judge suggested that the parties try to reach an agreement again and report any possible settlement within 30 days. The next control date specified in the decision is September 20, 2026.
What the Golda case is really about
The story can be retold in one line: “Golda ice cream ‘sugar-free’ was found to contain 6.6 g of lactose, the court allowed a class action for 350 million shekels.” Formally, almost all the main words here will be correct — and at the same time, the reader will get a very distorted picture.
The court has not yet found Golda guilty. It did not award 350 million. It did not establish medical harm to diabetics. And even the popular figure “13 times higher than the norm” requires substantial clarification because the norm used for comparison directly regulates another category of products.
But there is a question in the case that concerns almost any Israeli buyer. When a person sees on a price tag or showcase “ללא סוכר — sugar-free”, how much additional knowledge about food chemistry and labeling rules is the state entitled to expect from them?
Golda says: the buyer understands that dairy ice cream contains lactose and that the absence of added sugar is meant. The plaintiff’s side responds: if the seller wanted to say “no added sugar,” they could have written it that way. The court on August 9, 2026, decided that this dispute deserves a full-fledged class action.
For NANews — News of Israel this is the main conclusion. One receipt for 62 shekels turned into a case with a declared price of 350 million not because someone suddenly discovered the existence of lactose in milk. The reason was two words with which one of the largest food brands in Israel explained to a person what exactly they were buying.
And now the meaning of these two words will be examined by the court.
Sources: Central District Court decision in Lod on August 9, 2026, in case No. 59986-02-24 “Yarkoni v. Anita Glida Ltd.”; N12/Mako; Arutz 7; for the history and current scale of Golda — materials from Calcalist and Globes.