Mondelēz Sues YouTuber-Backed Joyride Over Sour Patch Kids Copy

Mondelēz International sued Joyride Sweets on Monday, accusing the candy startup of building its "Sour Smacks" brand on what the lawsuit calls nearly identical copies of Sour Patch Kids' kid-shaped mascot and trade dress.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern of Illinois, Eastern Division, lands at a company co-owned by YouTube creator Ryan Trahan — a detail that guarantees attention no press release could buy. Mondelēz, the owner of Oreo and Ritz, claims Joyride's yellow and green packaging was "intended to copy, and cause confusion."

What does Mondelēz actually allege?

The timeline matters. Joyride began selling sour gummy bears in 2020 under the generic label "sour fruit gummies." In 2025, it relaunched the product as "Sour Smacks" — now featuring humanoid-shaped gummies, which is precisely the form Sour Patch Kids has made famous.

The lawsuit doesn't mince words. "Joyride—true to its name—embarked on a brazen commercial strategy of 'joyriding' on the equity of America's favorite sour chewy candy brand," it reads. "It stole SOUR PATCH KIDS' popular look, and dared Mondelēz to do something about it. But these KIDS will not be pushed around."

Mondelēz also claims the two brands often sit side by side on the same retail shelves, and that Joyride leverages that proximity — and the resulting shopper confusion — to "trick" consumers into picking up Joyride instead of Sour Patch Kids.

The company says it repeatedly warned Joyride, which is private-equity-backed, that it was infringing intellectual property. Joyride refused to stop.

"Mondelēz is not in the business of suing," the company said in a statement carried by the complaint. "But when, in an attempt to resolve this dispute, Mondelēz repeatedly asked Joyride to cease this infringement, Joyride refused to stop. Mondelēz thus was left with no choice but to protect its SOUR PATCH KIDS brand through litigation."

A Joyride spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Mondelēz says it hasn't heard from the company since filing.

Why packaging confusion is the whole ballgame

For brands, this is not cosmetic. A 2020 Shorr Packaging study found packaging matters to seven out of 10 shoppers. A 2018 Ipsos study put it more bluntly: 72% of consumers said packaging design often influences their purchase decisions. On a crowded candy aisle, mimicry isn't flattery — it's a conversion strategy.

Mondelēz knows this terrain well. Food companies have sued competitors more frequently in recent years to protect brand equity, and Mondelēz has been an enthusiastic participant.

Consider the pattern:

• 2025: Mondelēz demanded that Aldi change packaging on several private label snacks, citing similarities to Oreo, Chips Ahoy! and five other brands in its portfolio.
• Also 2025: J.M. Smucker sued Trader Joe's, alleging the grocer's crustless PB&J sandwiches are an "obvious copycat" of Uncrustables.

What does this change for the category?

Mondelēz is asking the court to halt the trademark infringement and award monetary compensation "for the injuries it has suffered from Joyride's rampant misconduct," along with other damages.

The complaint closes with a pointed image: "Joyride is welcome on the playground — there's plenty of room for anyone who wants to play fairly. But fair play means following the well-established rules, and Joyride has shown no interest in playing fair."

"Instead, it built its business around looking as much like others as possible and trying to trick consumers into thinking they're someone else — like SOUR PATCH KIDS," the lawsuit continues. "What Joyride is doing is theft. It is intentional and deliberate. And it is unlawful."

For private label and challenger brands riding the look of established players, the message is straightforward. Mondelēz has now sued, threatened or demanded changes twice in a single year. Brand owners are treating shelf-level mimicry as a litigable offense, not a cost of doing business.