Pure Leaf Tea is Not ‘All Natural,’ Class Action Lawsuit Alleges

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.

Last month, Unilever and Pepsico were hit with a deceptive marketing class action lawsuit filed by a Florida man, alleging the companies deceptively misrepresented their Pure Leaf Iced Tea product as “all natural,” when these products actually contained artificial ingredients.

Plaintiff Michael Laboon filed this Pure Leaf Tea class action lawsuit in Florida federal court claiming Unilever and Pepsico deceived customers by falsely labeling their beverage products as “natural,” even though they allegedly contain “unnatural ingredients, which are synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified, including but not limited to Citric Acid and/or ‘Natural Flavor.’”

Citric acid is a synthetic substance created by fermenting glucose, which is usually obtained from genetically engineered sugar beets or maize. When used as an additive in products like Pure Leaf Tea, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies consider citric acid to be an unnatural substance.

“Defendants [Unilever and Pepsico] label the Products as ‘All Natural’ because reasonable consumers perceive all natural foods as healthier, better, and more wholesome” the Pure Leaf class action lawsuit says. “Through this deceptive practice, Defendants were able to charge a premium price for the Products by deceiving consumers about the true attributes of the Products and distinguishing the Products from similar products that do not claim to be ‘All Natural.’”

The Pure Leaf Tea deceptive marketing class action lawsuit alleges that Unilever and Pepsico unlawfully marketed their products as all natural in order to stake their claim in the rapidly growing natural foods market and make a premium off consumers who buy their Pure Leaf Tea products under the belief that they are buying a natural beverage. However, Laboon alleges that the presence of citric acid and “Natural Flavors” contradicts the companies’ claims that Pure Leaf Iced Tea is “all natural.”

“Unfortunately for consumers, they were charged, and paid, a price premium for these alleged ‘All Natural’ Products, over other Products that did not claim to be ‘All Natural,’” according to the Pure Leaf Tea class action lawsuit. “In addition, or as an alternative thereto, Plaintiff and members of the Class would not have purchased the Products but for the ‘All Natural’ claim, and as a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered damages in the total amount of the purchase price of the Products(s) they have purchased.”

Laboon seeks to represent himself in this Pure Leaf Tea deceptive marketing class action lawsuit, as well as a Class that would include: “all persons who purchased the Products within the State of Florida, for personal use and not resale, during the time-period extending from April 29, 2011 to the present,” according to the Pure Leaf Tea class action lawsuit.

Laboon brings several allegations against Unilever and Pepsico, including claims of violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA), negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

In terms of relief, this deceptive marketing class action lawsuit is seeking certification of the above defined Pure Leaf Tea Class, declaratory and equitable relief—which would involve declaration that Unilever and Pepsico violated FDUTPA statutes and an order stopping them from continuing their deceptive marketing activity in the future—restitution to plaintiff and Class by the companies, disgorgement of profits, actual damages, attorney’s and court fees, and any other forms of relief deemed fit by the court.

Laboon has also requested a jury trial for this Pure Leaf Tea class action lawsuit.

The Pure Leaf Tea Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Laboon v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60914-WPD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.