Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A new consumer class action lawsuit claims Mott’s, ReaLime and ReaLemon juices are not 100% juice as advertised.
The claims were first filed in California state court in Ventura County, but were recently moved to California federal court.
The Mott’s juice class action lawsuit was filed by Kim Siflinger, who says she has purchased multiple Mott’s 100% juice products over the last four years, including 100% Apple Juice, 100% Lemon Juice and ReaLime 100% Lime Juice at local grocery stores.
She says she was surprised to discover the products did not contain only 100% juice, as advertised, and actually contained a number of preservatives.
In her eyes, the makers, Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., intentionally mislabeled the products to make them seem more attractive to consumers.
Siflinger states Keurig Dr Pepper owns a range of beverage brands, including Mott’s LLP. Mott’s, in turn, markets products under the Mott’s name as well as under the ReaLemon and ReaLime name.
Reportedly, Mott’s is best known for its apple juices, but has a range of products, including white grape juice, apple cherry juice, apple apple mango juice and others.
According to Siflinger, Mott’s advertises their juice products as containing 100% juice — for instance, their products are called Mott’s 100% Apple White Grape Juice, Mott’s 100% Apple Mango Juice, ReaLemon 100% Lemon Juice and ReaLime 100% Lime Juice.
The Mott’s 100% Apple Juice class action lawsuit says she and other customers buy Mott’s products specifically because they are attracted to the 100% juice claim.
She and others reportedly believe 100% juice products are more valuable and better for their health than juice products with additives.
She cites consumer surveys, one of which was conducted by the National Research Center.
Reportedly, the center found in 2014 that 69% of customers stated that in making their purchasing decisions, “avoiding artificial ingredients such as preservatives, colors, or flavors” was “crucial” to them.
Allegedly, Mott’s is well aware of this consumer preference and labels its products as 100% juice in the interest of getting consumers to choose their products over competitors’ products.
However, Siflinger says, the products are falsely labeled.
She states that the products are not 100% juice, but contain a range of other ingredients, including synthetic preservatives like sodium benzoate, ascorbic acid and sodium bisulfite.
She explains though sodium benzoate is normally considered to be a safe food additive, there is some concern amongst experts that the substance can convert into benzene, a carcinogen. Allegedly, this may be the case when it comes into contact with ascorbic acid.
She also states that some research indicates sodium benzoate may be linked to hyperactivity in children.
The Mott’s 100% Apple Juice false advertising class action lawsuit states consumers who look for 100% juice products without additional additives are concerned for their health, and aim to avoid the potential negative health effects that additives can be associated with.
However, according to Siflinger, even if the alleged additives in Mott’s juices are totally safe, they still are part of a misrepresentation that has harmed customers. She says that in her case, and in the case of many other customers, if she had known that the juices contained ingredients other than 100% juice, which was advertised on the front label, she would not have purchased the products or would not have agreed to pay as much for them.
The Mott’s 100% Apple Juice ingredients class action lawsuit states that Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, prohibits food and beverage labeling from being “false or misleading in any particular.” Additionally, California laws supposedly prohibits beverage labels from being misleading, stating that “any food is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.”
According to the Mott’s 100% Apple Juice false advertising class action lawsuit, Keurig Dr Pepper is or should be aware of these laws, but chose to violate them nonetheless in the interest of enhancing its own profits.
Are you concerned about Mott’s 100% Apple Juice ingredients? Do you prefer juices that are advertised as 100% juice? If so, why? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Siflinger is represented by Trenton R. Kashima of Sommers Schwartz PC and Douglas S. Gilliland of The Gilliland Firm.
The Mott’s 100% juice class action lawsuit is Kim Siflinger v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07783-FMO-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Florida, Western Division.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
Family Dollar Almonds Class Action Lawsuit Challenges ‘Smoked’ Label
WestSoy Class Action Lawsuit Says Soymilk Doesn’t Contain Natural Vanilla
Roundup® Weed & Grass Killer Product Label Class Action Settlement
Uber Sexual Assault, Lyft Driver Rideshare App Lawsuit Investigation
832 thoughts onMott’s 100% apple juice contains preservatives, class action alleges
Please add me to the claim. My 2 & 3 year old drink a lot of Mott’s Apple Juice. We’re an organic family. We love the convicence of the product, but we’re upset that our children were exposed to complex preservatives.
This is awful to hear
Please include me.
Please add me.
I have consumed a ton of ReaLime juice over the past decade thinking that it was pure and 100% juice as advertised in large font on the front of the container. I was super concerned to learn about the SODIUM BENZOATE and what happens when this ingredient interacts with ascorbic acid. I wouldn’t have purchased it if I knew about their false advertising.
Please Add Thank You
Same
on the list