Frito-Lay closes plant in Rancho Cucamonga
The plant has been a major employer in the area since opening in 1970, staffing thousands over its 55-year run.
The facility also gained cultural significance as the birthplace of Flamin' Hot Cheetos, which were introduced in 1991, though the origin story has been the subject of litigation.
Frito-Lay is owned by parent company PepsiCo Foods U.S., which confirmed the shutdown of manufacturing operations at the site.
'We are truly grateful for all the support over the last five decades from our Rancho Cucamonga manufacturing team as well as the local community,' the company said in a statement Monday. 'We are committed to supporting those impacted through this transition and we are offering pay and benefits to impacted employees.'
The company did not specify how many employees were affected.
Former workers posted on social media that they were given 10 weeks of severance pay.
The abrupt nature of the closure left employees scrambling to figure out their next steps.
'I was supposed to get married this year, now I have to find a new job or at least figure a way to survive,' one laid-off worker said on Reddit.
The Employment Development Department confirmed that Frito-Lay had not filed a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, with the state, which typically requires employers to give 60 days advance notice of mass layoffs.
The Rancho Cucamonga closure is part of a broader pattern of PepsiCo facility shutdowns. Earlier this year, the company announced the closure of a Frito-Lay plant in Liberty, N.Y., laying off 287 workers, and cut 56 jobs at a warehouse in Maryland.
The closures come as PepsiCo faces declining snack sales. In its most recent earnings call, chief executive Ramon Laguarta said the company was 'right-sizing the cost' of its snacks division after Frito-Lay sales volume dropped slightly in the first quarter.
Warehouse, distribution, fleet and transportation services will continue to operate out of the facility.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
2 hours ago
- Engadget
People in the UK now have to take an age verification selfie to watch porn online
As of Friday, anyone trying to watch porn online in the UK will need to subject themselves to an awkward selfie or get their photo ID ready. The UK government announced it will start checking compliance with its Online Safety Act, which requires any website that publishes or displays pornographic content to implement a system for "highly effective age checks." Ofcom, the UK's media regulatory agency, offered a few methods for sites to provide more extensive age verification, including credit card checks, photo ID matching and even estimating a user's age with a provided selfie. Several popular porn sites, including the country's most-visited site PornHub, have agreed to the new regulations. Beyond popular porn providers, social media sites like Reddit and Bluesky, have already implemented an age verification system that complies with the Online Safety Act's rules. Savvy internet users are already circumventing the age checks by using a VPN, providing a fake ChatGPT-generated photo ID, or taking a high-quality selfie of video game characters. However, the UK's new law also makes it illegal for websites to promote VPNs that get around age verification. To make sure the Online Safety Act is effective, Ofcom will fine companies caught breaking the rules with fines of up to £18 million or 10 percent of their global revenue.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Woman Backs Out of Group Trip. Now, Her Friends Want Her to Cover Everyone's Financial Loss
After pulling out of a group trip for personal reasons, a woman finds herself at odds with friends who now expect her to take on the entire financial loss A woman seeks advice from the Reddit community following a dispute with two friends over a canceled Airbnb trip. The original plan was simple: three friends would be splitting a $600 rental, each contributing $200, with one friend, referred to as Friend A, paying the full amount upfront. "Friend A was the one who made the reservation and paid in full so that me and friend B would give A our share ($200.00 each) later," the woman writes in her post. But plans changed when she decided not to go anymore, citing "personal and safety reasons." Although the rental host "would only give a 50% refund" if they canceled, "both friend A and friend B still wanted to go." Even though she backed out, the poster told her friends that she'd honor her part of the agreement. 'I said if they still wanted to go I would give my share ($200.00) since I took the responsibility of being part of it before,' she explains. However, things took a turn when Friend A demanded more than just her original share. "Friend A said that I should pay $300.00 because I was the one who didn't want to go, not them, and if they were to cancel it that would be the total loss," she explains. The poster didn't agree that she should be paying more than her portion, especially since the trip was still scheduled to move forward without her. 'Why would I pay for half of the trip when is not even canceled yet?' she questions, pushing back on what she saw as an unfair request. Friend A then mentioned they would try to invite someone else to take her spot. But they made it clear that if that person declined, the poster would be expected to cover the full $300 shortfall. The next day, Friend A messaged again with an update. 'They informed me that the other person they invited did not want to go and that they had cancelled the house,' the woman writes, adding that Friend A also sent proof of a refund. Now, with the Airbnb officially canceled, Friend A insisted she should be held fully responsible for the loss. 'They expected that I paid the full amount of $300.00 because I backed out first,' she explains, even though both friends ultimately decided not to go. What made the situation even more frustrating was Friend A's refusal to ask Friend B for their share "because they too wanted to go." "I told them that if they ask for person's B share or not is not my problem, my only responsibility now is paying my part," the woman replied. To her, the fair thing would be for everyone to pay based on the final outcome. 'Now that the refund was made I believe that the correct amount for each person to pay is $100.00,' she argues, since the Airbnb host only refunded 50% of the $600 total. She reiterates that she never asked the group to cancel. 'I never forced them to not go but actually said I would still pay MY part in full and they chose not to go,' she writes. From her perspective, she upheld her end of the plan, and what they did afterward was out of her hands. Despite the pushback from Friend A, she decided to settle what she believed was fair. 'I refused and sent $105.00 for my share and told them that was my share and that it would be all I was going to pay,' she shares, sticking firmly to her decision. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. In an edit to the post, the woman shared that Friend A's "reasoning for not going through with the trip was because they didn't want to split food and gas into 2, but 3." Adding yet another layer of tension to the story, the poster revealed that the friend initially "wanted a bigger and prettier house that could fit 4-5 people, but I didn't want that one because it was too expensive (about $850)." The situation left her feeling stuck, unsure if setting boundaries over what she owes makes her selfish or simply fair. But one thing she's certain of is this: 'My only responsibility now is paying my part.' Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
Business Upturn
6 hours ago
- Business Upturn
RDDT STOCK UPDATE: Reddit, Inc. (NYSE:RDDT) is being Sued for Securities Fraud – Contact BFA Law by August 18 Class Action Deadline
NEW YORK, July 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Reddit, Inc. (NYSE: RDDT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Reddit, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: Investors have until August 18, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Reddit securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Tamraz, Jr. v. Reddit, Inc., at al. , No. 25-cv-05144. Why was Reddit Sued for Securities Fraud? Reddit owns and operates the eponymous social news aggregation, forum, and social media platform. Reddit receives a significant portion of its user traffic from individuals seeking answers to questions using Google Search. The complaint alleges that Reddit misrepresented and downplayed the impact that Google's use of Artificial Intelligence ('AI') technology in Google's search results had on Reddit's user growth. In truth, Google's use of AI dented Reddit's user growth by eliminating the need for individuals to visit and click through to Reddit to get answers to their questions. Rather, the answers appeared through Google's AI search results. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On May 1, 2025, Reddit reported a significant slowdown in daily active user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock declined $4.96 per share, or more than 4%, from $118.79 per share on May 1, 2025, to $113.83 per share on May 2, 2025. Then, on May 21, 2025, Wall Street analyst Baird cut its Reddit stock price target over concerns that Google's AI capabilities are stifling Reddit's user growth. On this news, the price of Reddit stock fell $9.79 per share, or over 9%, from $105.64 per share on May 20, 2025, to $95.85 per share on May 21, 2025. Click here for more information: What Can You Do? If you invested in Reddit you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact:Ross Shikowitz [email protected] 212.789.3619
