Israel Hayom, ICE and Kikar reported an application to certify a class action filed in the Haifa Magistrates' Court, estimated at approximately NIS 2.3 million. According to the reports, attorney Golan Naftali filed it on behalf of a Netanya resident. This is a certification application that has not been decided, not an already certified class action, judgment or damages award. The bounded review did not locate a case number or the primary filing. The core consumer allegation, as described by the reports, is that a Danablu-style cheese product appeared in search results and a commercial setting associated with cheeses, although it allegedly contained palm or vegetable fat and the word cheese did not appear on the package. The reports also describe a separate allegation concerning sodium levels in products labeled no salt. These remain the applicant's allegations; the reviewed evidence contains no judicial finding that the products or their presentation violated the law. The sources disagree on the central question of defendant identity. Israel Hayom and ICE say the application was filed against Wolt and describe the product's presentation on the platform. Kikar instead names Global Retail K.Y. Ltd., operator of Carrefour and Yeinot Bitan, as the defendant and describes Wolt as the app the applicant used to order. Without the primary legal document, it is impossible to determine whether one report is mistaken, whether both companies are defendants, or whether the reports concern different proceedings.
Class-Action Application Over a Cheese-Style Product: Reports Disagree on the Defendant
Three reports describe an application to certify a class action in the Haifa Magistrates' Court, estimated at approximately NIS 2.3 million, following allegations about how a Danablu-style cheese product was presented. But they differ on a central point: Israel Hayom and ICE identify Wolt as the defendant, while Kikar identifies Global Retail K.Y. Ltd. as the defendant and Wolt as the channel through which the order was placed. Without the application itself or a primary docket record, the reports do not establish who the actual defendant or defendants are.
Why it matters
The story concerns both food-product presentation in online commerce and the evidentiary limits of news reporting when secondary sources disagree on a basic legal question. Instead of selecting one version, the article attributes each account and leaves the defendant's identity open.
What's next
Until the application or a current docket record is available, there is no basis to determine who was sued, whether certification will be granted or whether compensation will be awarded. A future court document or company response may clarify the parties and procedural status; this is not a prediction of the outcome.
Verified facts
- Israel Hayom, ICE and Kikar reported an application to certify a class action in the Haifa Magistrates' Court for approximately NIS 2.3 million; this is not a judgment or awarded compensation (the three reports)
- According to the reports, attorney Golan Naftali filed the application on behalf of a Netanya resident (the three reports)
- The reported allegations concern presenting a Danablu-style cheese product as cheese although it allegedly contained palm or vegetable fat, plus a separate allegation about sodium in products labeled no salt (the three reports)
- Israel Hayom and ICE identify Wolt as the defendant, while Kikar identifies Global Retail K.Y. Ltd. as the defendant and describes Wolt as the ordering channel (the attributed reports)
- The bounded review found no primary court document, case number or response attributable to Wolt (WIRE-EDITORIAL-006)