Arizona Arnold Palmer Lite Half & Half Ice Tea Lemonade
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as “Lite” when sugar is the second most predominant ingredient and they are not low in calories
Jamison et al. v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC and Hornell Co., Inc.
23-cv-920, N.D. Cal
(March 2023)
Arizona Fruit Snacks – Mixed Fruit
Falsely marketing products as containing “no preservatives” when they contain a preservative (citric acid)
Pending
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as “Lite” when sugar is the second most predominant ingredient and they are not low in calories
Allegations: Falsely marketing that fruit snacks contain “No Preservatives” when they contain a preservative ingredient
Allegations: Falsely marketing that products contain no preservatives
Allegations: False natural claims
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that products are “made with real fruit” when they don’t contain any fruit
Allegations: False natural claims
Allegations: Marketing beverages as “lite” when sugar is the second most predominant ingredient
Allegations: False natural claims
Allegations: Marketing beverages as “Vitamin C Fortified” in violation of FDA regulations and misleadingly marketing products as “All Natural”
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing beverages as having no calories when they contain more calories than federal regulations allow when making such claims
Allegations: False natural claims
In September 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against AriZona Beverages for allegedly misleadingly marketing Arnold Palmer beverages as “zero calorie” when, according to plaintiffs, the drink contains 15 calories.…
In October 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Arizona Beverages USA for allegedly misleadingly marketing Arnold Palmer iced tea and lemonade beverages as “Lite” to make consumers think the…
In February 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the marketers of Arizona Fruit Snacks for allegedly falsely advertising the snacks as “all natural” when, according to plaintiffs, they contain…
September 2019: The Lockhart case was transferred from a court in California to one in New York. (Lockhart et al v. Beverage Marketing USA, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-5345, E. D.…
July 2019: This case was transferred to a court in New York where a related case, Kubilius v. Arizona Beverage Co., was filed. (Ashour v. AriZona Beverages, Case No. 19-cv-7081,…
July 2019: The claims of one of the named plaintiffs (Kubilius) were voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have…
March 2013: A federal judge granted the companies’ motion for summary judgment finding that plaintiffs have not presented any evidence showing that certain ingredients are artificial and a significant portion…
The new smash-hit from the Duolingo holiday album “Owl on the Prowl” 🦉
Does this company have the ammunition to support its bulletproof claims?
Consumer complaints worth remembering.
Why this eyewear company’s advertised “starting” prices may not be 20/20.
MADISON, CONN. Dec. 12, 2024— In a win for consumers, a court has ordered Quincy Bioscience to stop advertising Prevagen using memory-improvement claims. This follows a near-decade-long campaign by the…