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
Scheibe et al. v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC
23-cv-998, S.D. Cal.
(May 2023)
Arizona fruit snacks, green tea fruit snacks, and Arnold Palmer Half & Half fruit snacks
Falsely marketing that fruit snacks contain “No Preservatives” when they contain a preservative ingredient (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 products contain no preservatives
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as containing “no preservatives” when they contain a preservative
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…
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…
What led up to brain supplement’s December to remember.
Jessica Bennett, The Cut