Class Action: Spindrift Beverages Falsely Advertised as Containing Only Two ‘Simple’ Ingredients [UPDATE]

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges that certain Spindrift-brand sparking water and spiked sparkling water beverages are falsely labeled as containing only carbonated water and fruit or alcoholic carbonated water and fruit since they have a third, artificial ingredient.

According to the 65-page case, the front label of the non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks made by Spindrift represents to consumers that the products contain only “sparkling water” or “spiked sparkling water” and “real squeezed fruit,” promising, “yup, that’s it.” Contrary to these representations, certain flavors of each product are made with citric acid, a synthetically manufactured artificial flavoring agent and preservative that is not derived from fruits, carbonated water or alcohol, the lawsuit contends.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

“Although citric acid can be produced naturally by extracting it from citrus fruits, commercial production of citric acid for food and beverage products is not created by this natural process,” the case reads. “Rather, more than 90 percent of commercially produced citric acid is produced through a processed derivative of black mold, Aspergillus niger, which can cause allergic reactions and diseases in humans.”

The suit adds that citric acid in beverages can break down enamel and erode teeth.

The complaint argues that Spindrift intentionally marketed its sparkling water and hard sparkling water drinks as “clean” and “simple” to appeal to consumers’ desire for more natural products. As the case tells it, studies show that a majority of consumers will pay more for products that tout short, recognizable ingredient lists.

By engaging in this alleged marketing scheme, Spindrift has charged a premium for the drinks while simultaneously “reaping the financial benefits of utilizing cheaper and easier-to-produce ingredients,” the filing contends.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, says that they would not have purchased Spindrift sparkling water, or would not have paid as much for it, had they known that it contains an additional, artificial ingredient.

The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased, not for resale, one of the following products with the “yup, that’s it” representation on its label or packaging and containing manufactured citric acid:

• Blood Orange Tangerine Sparkling Water;
• Cucumber Sparkling Water;
• Orange Mango Sparkling Water;
• Pineapple Sparkling Water;
• Blood Orange Tangerine Spiked Sparkling Water;
• Grapefruit Spiked Sparkling Water;
• Lemon Spiked Sparkling Water;
• Mango Spiked Sparkling Water;
• Passion Orange Guava Spiked Sparkling Water; and
• Pineapple Spiked Sparkling Water.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.