Bai Class Action Says Fruit Drinks Aren’t All-Natural as Advertised

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.

Bai fruit drinks are the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging that the drinks’ labeling falsely advertises the drinks as all-natural.

Lead plaintiff Kevin Branca filed a class action against Bai Brands LLC claiming that the brand’s fruit drinks are falsely advertised as containing only natural ingredients when the drinks are artificially flavored.

Under regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), front labels on products are legally required to disclose any additional artificial flavoring in the product that “simulated, resembles, or reinforces” the main flavor.

According to the Bai fruit drinks class action, Bai beverages contain a synthetic chemical flavoring compound known as malic acid. Branca claims that malic acid mimics the fresh fruit flavors of blueberries, mangos, and cherries but Bai drinks’ front labels do not reflect the artificial flavoring.

“The products are labeled as if they contain only natural ingredients and are flavored only with natural ingredients when the products in fact contain undisclosed artificial flavors in violation of state and federal law,” the Bai class action lawsuit states. “Defendant’s packaging, labeling and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, all-­natural product with only natural flavoring ingredients instead of a product that is artificially flavored.”

Between 2012 and 2016, Branca says he purchased Bai beverages multiple times under the assumption that they were all-natural drinks. Branca claims that any consumer reading the names of the products (Brasilia Blueberry, Malawi Mango, Sumatra Dragonfruit, and Bolivia Black Cherry) and the labeling on the products would assume that they are all-natural because the labels do not contain any mention of artificial flavors.

“[Branca] was deceived by and relied upon the Products’ deceptive labeling, and specifically the omission of the legally-required notice that it contained artificial flavorings,” the Bai fruit drinks class action lawsuit claims. “[Branca] purchased the Products believing they were naturally flavored, based on the Products’ deceptive labeling and failure to disclose that it was artificially flavored.”

The Bai class action lawsuit states that consumers should not be expected to conduct laboratory analysis, scrutinize the back label, or search for information that should be prominently displayed. Instead, consumers should be able to rely on the depictions of the front label and advertising when purchasing products.

The plaintiff claims that the unreliable front label caused him to not discover the true contents of the products until 2018 although he had been drinking them since 2012.

Branca seeks to represent a Class of all people in the United Sates who bought Bai drinks since January 2012. He also seeks to represent a statewide Class of California citizens who bought Bai drinks in the same timeframe and are protected by California consumer protection laws.

The Bai class action seeks restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. The suit also seeks an order compelling Bai to stop violating FDA regulations, to relabel all existing products, and to conduct a “corrective advertising campaign” to inform consumers.

Branca is represented by Ronald A. Marron and Michael T. Houchin of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

The Bai Artificial Flavored Drinks Class Action Lawsuit is Branca v. Bai Brands LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00757, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.