Consumer Fraud

Liquid Death Class Action Over Sugar Content

Liquid Death Class Action Over Sugar Content — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Case Overview

A plaintiff named James Williamson initiated a class action lawsuit against Supplying Demand Inc., which operates as Liquid Death. The core allegation is that the company's sparkling energy drinks are marketed with "0g Sugar" and "Zero Sugar" labels, despite containing allulose, a monosaccharide sugar, as a significant ingredient.

Williamson contends that the labeling is misleading because federal and California law set a threshold for "sugar-free" claims at less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, a limit the products allegedly exceed due to the presence of allulose. The lawsuit builds on a Seventh Circuit ruling in a related case, which determined that allulose qualifies as a sugar under FDA regulations.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of U.S. consumers, with a specific subclass for California residents. The complaint alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, among other claims. The current status involves the plaintiff seeking a jury trial, class certification, and damages, with the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Who May Qualify

Consumers who purchased Liquid Death "0g Sugar" sparkling energy drinks in the United States, including a subclass for California consumers.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the basis of the lawsuit?

The lawsuit alleges that Liquid Death falsely advertises its drinks as "0g Sugar" and "Zero Sugar" when they actually contain allulose, which the plaintiff argues is a sugar that should count toward sugar content.

What laws are cited in the complaint?

The complaint cites violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, in addition to breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

What is the case number and where was it filed?

The case is Williamson v. Supplying Demand Inc., with Case No. 4:26-cv-08839, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Related Cases

Zillow Allegedly Charging Illegal 'Junk' Fee on Online Rent Payments — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Zillow Allegedly Charging Illegal 'Junk' Fee on Online Rent Payments

Current
Consumer Fraud
A class action lawsuit has been filed alleging that Zillow improperly adds an undisclosed 'junk' fee when consumers pay rent through its Zillow Rental Manager service. The complaint claims this fee is unexpected and violates consumer protection laws.
Meta Accused of Profiting from Scam Cryptocurrency Ads — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Meta Accused of Profiting from Scam Cryptocurrency Ads

Current
Consumer Fraud
A class action lawsuit alleges that Meta profits from fraudulent cryptocurrency advertisements running on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. The plaintiffs claim Meta is aware of these scams but fails to take adequate action to stop them.
Meta and Luxottica Allegedly Violate Right to Repair Law — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Meta and Luxottica Allegedly Violate Right to Repair Law

Current
Consumer Fraud
A repair shop filed a lawsuit alleging that Meta and Luxottica violated Colorado's right to repair law concerning Meta smart glasses. The plaintiff claims the companies failed to provide necessary repair materials, thereby limiting consumer repair options. The lawsuit seeks court orders for materials and compensation for lost business revenue.