Spindrift class action claims products falsely advertised as only containing 2 ingredients

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.

Spindrift class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Madeline Pantoni has filed a class action lawsuit against Spindrift Beverage Co. Inc.
• Why: Spindrift allegedly falsely labels some of its products as containing only two natural ingredients when they actually contain manufactured citric acid.
• Where: The Spindrift class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

Spindrift Beverage Co. Inc. falsely labels some of its sparkling water and spiked sparkling water products as containing only two ingredients, according to a class action lawsuit filed Jan. 3 in California federal court.

Plaintiff Madeline Pantoni says she purchased Spindrift sparkling water products after reading the label. Based on the label’s representations, she says, she believed the ingredients consisted solely of sparkling water and real squeezed fruit and did not contain artificial preservatives or flavoring agents.

The Spindrift sparkling water prominently states on the label that it contains “SPARKLING WATER & REAL SQUEEZED FRUIT. yup that’s it.” Similarly, the Spindrift spiked water product labels allegedly state: “spiked sparkling water. real squeezed [fruit]. YUP THAT’S IT.”

This language leads consumers to believe the products do not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, the Spindrift class action lawsuit alleges.

However, both Spindrift sparkling water and Spindrift spiked sparkling water products allegedly contain manufactured citric acid.

Spindrift class action says manufactured citric acid may cause negative side effects

The Spindrift class action lawsuit defines manufactured citric acid as “a synthetic or artificial preservative and flavoring agent that is not squeezed or derived from fruits, let alone carbonated water or alcohol.” 

The plaintiff says consuming manufactured citric acid may cause negative side effects such as swelling and stiffness that can result in joint and/or muscle pain, stomach pain and shortness of breath.

Spindrift allegedly sought to capitalize on consumers’ desire for natural products and secure a competitive advantage over other manufacturers of sparkling water and hard-seltzer companies. The company touts its natural ingredients throughout its webpage, in various blog posts, and in social media posts highlighting its products’ simple and clean ingredients, the class action says.

The Spindrift class action lawsuit alleges the following sparkling water flavors contain artificial ingredients: blood orange tangerine, cucumber, orange mango and pineapple. The following spiked sparkling water flavors also allegedly contain artificial ingredients: blood orange tangerine, grapefruit, lemon, mango, passion orange guava and pineapple.

Pantoni asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

The makers of Poland Spring sparkling lemon water and Polar lemon seltzer have been the subject of similar class action lawsuits alleging the products are misrepresented as containing natural lemon ingredients when they actually contain artificially created lemon flavoring.

Have you purchased Spindrift sparkling water products because you believed they contained only natural ingredients? Tell us what you think of the Spindrift class action in the comments!

Pantoni is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce, Kelsey J. Elling and Olivia Treister of Clarkson Law Firm PC.

The Spindrift class action lawsuit is Madeline Pantoni, et al. v. Spindrift Beverage Co. Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00014-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Avery’s Savory Popcorn recalls gourmet popcorn due to undeclared allergens
• Starbucks class action alleges Sprouted Grain bagel made primarily with traditional, non-sprouted grains
• Kind class action alleges granola falsely advertised as high in fiber
• Schwan’s class action claims Edwards créme pies falsely advertised as preservative-free