Judge Allows "All Natural" Labeling Lawsuit Against Snapple to Proceed

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit against Snapple challenging its "All Natural" labeling will proceed after a judge denied the company's motion to dismiss. Consumers allege the beverages contain synthetic ingredients despite being marketed as "All Natural."

Consumers Affected: Consumers who purchased Snapple products labeled as "All Natural."

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

A class action lawsuit against Snapple Beverage Corp. will proceed after a judge denied the company’s motion to dismiss claims concerning the labeling of its teas and juices as “All Natural.” 

The case, brought by California resident Albert Fried, argues that Snapple’s use of the “All Natural” label is misleading because the beverages contain manufactured citric acid, a common food additive.

Fried, who regularly purchased Snapple’s peach and lemon teas over the past four years, alleges that Snapple misled consumers by marketing these products as “All Natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients. The lawsuit claims that this labeling allowed Snapple, a brand under Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., to charge a premium price for its beverages.

Judge’s Ruling on Snapple’s Motion to Dismiss

In her decision, Judge Dana M. Sabraw ruled that the class action could move forward on several key claims, including those related to consumer expectations of “All Natural” products. Fried and his attorneys argue that consumers reasonably expect products labeled as “All Natural” to contain only ingredients found in nature, not manufactured additives like citric acid, Bloomberg Law reports.

Judge Sabraw acknowledged these consumer expectations in her ruling, allowing Fried’s core allegations to proceed. However, she dismissed other claims related to juice concentrates in Snapple products, ruling that these did not mislead consumers in the same way as the citric acid claims. 

The ruling opens the door for further examination of Snapple’s labeling practices, particularly regarding the use of additives in products marketed as “All Natural.”

Allegations Against Snapple’s “All Natural” Label

The lawsuit argues that Snapple’s labeling misrepresents the product’s ingredients, potentially leading consumers to believe they are buying a completely natural beverage. Citric acid, though naturally present in citrus fruits, is often manufactured through a synthetic process for commercial use. The plaintiffs contend that consumers looking for all-natural products may not be aware of this difference, making the “All Natural” label misleading.

Fried’s case highlights this alleged discrepancy, arguing that Snapple’s labeling practices create an unfair advantage in the market by promoting a product that does not fully meet the expectations associated with “All Natural” claims. The suit seeks compensation for customers who paid a premium for Snapple’s products based on these label claims and aims to hold Snapple accountable for transparency in its labeling.

Similar Cases Against Snapple

Snapple has faced similar lawsuits in the past, with plaintiffs challenging the company’s “All Natural” claims. Some of these lawsuits have been dismissed, with courts ruling that consumers were not likely to be misled by the labeling. 

In this case, however, the court found sufficient grounds to allow Fried’s claims to proceed, particularly regarding the use of manufactured citric acid in products marketed as “All Natural.”

This ruling may signal an increased judicial willingness to scrutinize “All Natural” claims more closely, especially when synthetic ingredients are involved. Consumers are increasingly concerned with the transparency of ingredient sourcing, and lawsuits like this underscore the importance of clarity in food and beverage labeling.

What’s Next in the Snapple Case?

With the dismissal motion denied, the case will now proceed to further litigation, potentially moving toward trial or settlement discussions. Fried and other consumers in the proposed class will have the opportunity to argue their case that Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling is misleading. 

They aim to seek compensation for the alleged premium paid due to the label claims and to encourage Snapple and other brands to offer more transparent product labeling.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Fried v. Snapple Beverage Company
• Case Number:  3:24-cv-00653
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Melanie R. Monroe, Trevor M. Flynn, Peter Grazul, and Jack Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC)
• Caroline S. Emhardt (Gomez Trail Attorneys)

Do you drink Snapple? What are your thoughts on the 'All Natural' labeling lawsuit? Share your opinion in the comments below.