Food and beverage companies face mounting scrutiny over absolute marketing claims emphasizing the product’s purity. Terms such as “all natural,” “non-artificial,” “additive free” or “100% pure” may resonate with consumers, anchor marketing campaigns and justify premium pricing — but they also invite class action lawsuits. Federal courts in New York, California, Illinois and Florida broadly interpret state consumer protection statutes and what may mislead a “reasonable consumer.” Moreover, these cases may involve state laws allowing for private rights of action that parallel the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act but evade the federal preemption defense. As a result, many of these lawsuits survive motions to dismiss, forcing defendants into costly discovery and class-certification battles.
To minimize these risks, food and beverage companies would be well advised to carefully substantiate their product claims and closely monitor litigation and regulatory trends.
“Non-Artificial” Claims Under Scrutiny
Lawsuits over citric acid and artificial ingredients are on the rise. In such suits, plaintiffs may allege inconsistencies between front-label purity claims (e.g., “artificial-free”) and ingredients (e.g., citric acid or xanthan gum), usually listed on the back label. Generally, litigation risk hinges on whether a reasonable consumer would interpret the label to mean the product contains no additives or artificial ingredients — a threshold increasingly subject to scrutiny in cases involving food and beverage products. Therefore, maintaining documents that prove that a product’s ingredients substantiate any absolute claims is key to defeating these lawsuits early.
Products that use citric acid as a flavor enhancer or preservative and make “all natural” claims are frequent targets for class actions. Though naturally present in citrus fruits, companies often collect citric acid by fermenting the fungus Aspergillus niger because that process is cheaper than extracting the acid from fruit. Knowing this, plaintiffs allege that manufacturing citric acid through fermentation renders any “all natural” or “no artificial ingredients” claim misleading to a reasonable consumer. Many complaints cite the FDA’s current guidance — that the term “natural” means that nothing artificial or synthetic (including color additives, regardless of source) has been included in or added to an ingredient that would not normally be expected to be in the food. But the FDA does not address all production methods, including fermentation, or establish that fermented citric acid is “synthetic.” Given the FDA’s position and lack of clear precedent, these suits may survive dismissal, giving plaintiffs leverage to force settlements.
Still, courts recognize that these cases are meritless if they do not connect the industry norm (i.e., using synthetically produced citric acid) to the actual variety of the ingredient in defendant’s product. In Vineyard v. La Terra Fina USA, LLC (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2025), a plaintiff alleged that the lid on La Terra Fina’s “Everything But The Bagel Dip & Spread,” which strongly stated, “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS, COLORS OR PRESERVATIVES,” was misleading because the product contained citric acid — a known preservative commonly used within the commercial context in a synthetic or artificial form. The court dismissed the proposed class action, in part because there were no allegations that the specific citric acid in La Terra’s dips were synthetic or distinguishable from natural citric acid (i.e., extracted from citrus fruit). The court stated, the plaintiff needed to “provide more support to her empty assertions that, because La Terra Fina uses food grade citric acid, it uses a variety that does not occur in nature.” Vineyard underscores that, while citric-acid suits frequently survive early motions, well-supported motions to dismiss remain viable when plaintiffs cannot link general industry practice to a defendant’s specific sourcing and ingredient function. To reduce risk, companies should monitor emerging litigation, document ingredient sourcing and functionality, and conduct regular front- and back-label audits of high-risk products.
Purity Litigation in the Tequila Space
Recent lawsuits alleging that tequila brands falsely label and market their products as “100% Agave” illustrate how plaintiffs combine independent lab testing with labeling regulations to advance misbranding claims. In Haschemie v. Cinco Spirits Group, LLC (S.D. Fla.) (Aug. 27, 2025), plaintiffs alleged that the company’s premium tequilas were not 100% made from the Blue Weber agave plant as claimed on their bottles. The plaintiffs commissioned nuclear magnetic resonance carbon isotope testing of Cinco’s tequila that purportedly revealed non-agave ethanol. According to the plaintiffs, this result showed Cinco’s tequila failed U.S. and Mexican regulatory standards for tequila, supporting the plaintiffs’ claim that Cinco’s “100% agave” label is misleading to consumers. Using such standards, plaintiffs took the novel position that for tequila to be labeled “100% agave,” the sugars derived must be solely from the Blue Weber agave plant. These types of suits underscore the growing tactic by plaintiffs’ lawyers of commissioning independent lab testing to buttress claims and avoid dismissal, driving cases into discovery and raising settlement pressure. It also exemplifies how plaintiffs may use changing regulatory standards to support their legal claims.
Risk Mitigation Strategies
Categorical purity claims pose risks. Companies can reduce litigation exposure by taking several measures.
- Avoiding absolutes unless airtight: Use “100%,” “all natural” or “no artificial ingredients” only if claims are fully substantiated.
- Leveraging qualified language: Alternatives such as “made with [ingredient]” or “with natural flavors” may convey authenticity while reducing risk.
- Documenting substantiation: Maintain detailed substantiation files, including ingredient sourcing, lab results, third-party certifications, and regulatory approvals to support defenses at dismissal or summary judgment.
- Monitoring trends: Track plaintiff strategies, regulatory guidance and evolving “reasonable consumer” standards in cases involving your products.
- Cross-department review: Involve legal, regulatory and marketing teams early in product development and labeling decisions.
- Audit front and back labels: Audit front and back labels for any inconsistencies (e.g., front labels claim “0% trans fat” and back label indicates a fractional amount of trans fat.)
- Immediately contact competent counsel: Plaintiffs’ lawyers often begin by filing a pre-lawsuit demand letter, threatening a lawsuit unless certain terms are met. If this happens, companies should immediately contact counsel with experience in the labeling space. Doing so quickly mitigates reputational and financial exposure.