Health Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING (FOOD, DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICES)—E.D.N.Y.: Misleading advertising class action involving ‘all natural’ beverage claims can’t hold water, (Sep 10, 2026)

By Sara Cracau, J.D.

Action relating to “natural” beverage containing citric acid tossed with leave to amend.

The federal district court in Brooklyn has granted the motion to dismiss of beverage companies in a misleading advertising action alleging that “natural” beverages containing synthetic citric acid finding that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court found that the consumers had standing to sue to pursue their monetary damages but not their injunctive relief claim. The court granted the beverage companies’ motion to dismiss the consumers’ injunctive relief claim because it was clear that the consumers had no intention of purchasing the products at issue in the future. The consumer failed to support her claim that the products contained synthetic citric acid. Because leave to amend should generally be freely given under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because there has not been a showing of prejudice or bad faith, the court granted the consumer’s motion for leave to amend (Peters v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., No. 1:25-cv-04410-MKB-PK (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026)).

Background. A consumer brought a misleading advertising class action against Keurig Dr. Pepper, a beverage manufacturer alleging that the manufacturer falsely represents to consumers that its products, through its packing, are “all natural” when the products contained synthetic citric acid which is not natural. The consumer sought to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States, during the maximum period of time authorized by law, purchased certain products for “personal, family, or household consumption, and all persons in New York who bought the products.” She asserted claims for violation of New York General Business Law (GBL), Sections 349 and 350 and breach of express warranty arising from the company’s manufacturing, advertising, and selling of Snapple beverages in various varieties (the Product(s).

The beverage manufacturer sought to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The consumer contended that although citric acid can be produced naturally, it is not economically feasible to produce it naturally in the U.S. and indicated that the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service noted that natural citric acid is no longer commercially available. She further alleged that she purchased the products for her own personal use and paid approximately $1.49 and contended that if she knew the products contained synthetic citric acid, she would not have purchased them or would have been purchased them but would have been willing to pay a lower price. Furthermore, she alleged that the beverage company ‘s “all natural claims” were an effort to capitalize on the growing market for natural products by health-conscious consumers who are willing to pay a premium price for products labelled as “natural” as they believe that they are safer and/or healthier.

The consumer also cited two warning letters from the FDA sent to companies in 2001 instructing them not to label products as natural if the products contained citric acid. The court explained that courts in the Second Circuit have explained that whether a product is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer under GBL sections 349 and 350 is not assessed by the FDA’s views or regulations alone. Here, a reasonable consumer would not be so absolutist as to require that “natural” may not include even an accidental and innocuous amount. The consumer failed to plausibly allege that citric acid, a naturally occurring ingredient which is processed and could retain traces of synthetic material, would mislead a reasonable consumer.

Standing. The court found that the consumer had standing to sue to pursue the claim for monetary damages but not the injunctive relief claim. The court found that the consumer’s allegations were sufficient to confer standing as the consumer established that she was injured by paying a premium price due to the company’s alleged misrepresentation of labelling the products as “natural.” She plausibly alleged that the class members purchased products which were worth less than products not containing synthetic citric acid and these allegations were sufficient to meet the standing requirement based on a price premium theory.

Injunctive relief claim. The court granted the beverage company’s motion to dismiss the consumers’ injunctive relief claim because the consumer did not allege that she would buy the product again. Nor did she have an ongoing relationship with the beverage company that would subject her to the possibility of future harm. Her briefing was silent on the issue of injunctive relief and whether she had established standing to seek injunctive relief. Therefore, she failed to show that she was likely to suffer future harm. The Second Circuit noted that “past purchasers of a consumer product who claim to be deceived by the product’s packaging have, at the most alleged a past harm. Past purchasers of a product are unlikely to encounter future harm which is the basis for injunctive relief. The complaint did not allege that the consumer faces a real or immediate threat of future injury. The consumer may not rely on an alleged past injury. Any potential “future injury” is merely conjectural or hypothetical.

Materially misleading conduct. The court found that the consumer failed to support her claim that the products contained synthetic citric acid. Her generalized statement that producing citric acid is “not economically feasible” is not sufficient and as she did not plead facts that demonstrate a link between the beverage company’s products and the manufacturing process as compared to the broader industry’s use of synthetic citric acid. The complaint did not contain any factually substantiated allegations to sufficiently allege that the citric acid in the products was artificially derived.

The consumer also failed to provide any scientific evidence or testing analysis linking her generalized assertion that the industry uses synthetic citric acid to the conclusion that the beverage company’s products contain synthetic citric acid. Courts in this circuit have found that plaintiffs who provide scientific evidence to support their claims cannot survive dismissal if the plaintiff fails to establish a connection between the provided testing and the disputed product. Here, the consumer’s allegations are no more than conclusory statements that are not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the court found that the FDA guidance that the consumer relied on in the complaint was not determinative nor does it specifically address whether the particular citric acid used in the products is synthetic.

Precedent from this circuit supports the court’s conclusion that the consumer’s allegations in the complaint are conclusory and, therefore, insufficient when faced with identical facts involving citric acid. Therefore, the court found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the citric acid found in the beverage company’s products was synthetic and, therefore, inconsistent with the products’ “all natural” representation.

Leave to amend complaint. Because leave to amend should generally be freely given under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because there has not been a showing of prejudice or bad faith, the court granted the consumer’s motion for leave to amend. Furthermore, the beverage companies did not address whether the consumer should be given extra time to amend or not.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-04410-MKB-PK.

Judge: Brodie, M.

Attorneys: Joshua D. Arisohn (Arisohn LLC) for Kesha Peters. Gabriella Marie Romanos Abihabib (Ashurst Perkins Coie U.S. LLP) for Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.

Companies: Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews FoodNews LabelingNews NewYorkNews