Revised class action says all Simply Orange juice products contain PFAS

Simply Orange PFAS class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: A New York man has filed a revised class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola and its subsidiary Simply Orange Juice Co. 
• Why: The plaintiff says the company sells juices that contain PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals. 
• Where: The Simply Orange PFAS class action lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court. 

A month after a man’s class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola and its subsidiary, Simply Orange Juice Co., was dismissed, he’s filed a revised version — this time alleging he’s tested multiple juices made by the brands and found harmful chemicals in all of them. 

New York resident Joseph Lurenz filed the amended complaint on July 9 in a New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. 

Lurenz claims that Simply juices contain significant levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) compounds, based on independent testing. 

PFAS are also known as “forever chemicals” because they are resistant to breaking down. They are artificially produced chemicals used to enhance everyday products like stain resistant clothing and furniture, cosmetics, and food packaging material.

However, PFAS can also have an impact on human health that scientists are just starting to understand, Lurenz says. 

“Scientists are studying—and are extremely concerned about—how PFAS affect human health,” he says. “Consequently, the (Centers for Disease Control) outlined ‘a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.’” 

Plaintiff files amended complaint, with new research

Lurenz claims that the juices are deceptively marketed as pure, healthy and all natural, due to the presence of PFAS.

His original complaint was dismissed by Judge Nelson Roman last month, who said Lurenz’s claims were based on test results that were not adequately connected to his own purchases of Simply Orange products. The judge ruled that the plaintiff’s claim relied on only a single allegation of testing that found PFAS in the juice and “cites no studies or articles indicating that the product generally contains PFAS.” 

Since then, Lurenz says he has obtained independent third-party testing that found “widespread and uniform contamination” of Simply Orange products, with levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in Simply Tropical more than 100 times higher than lifetime health advisory levels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deemed safe for drinking water. 

He says he tested a range of Simply Orange products that he bought, including pulp-free versions of Simply Orange and Simply Orange with Mango. He says the products contained significant levels of PFAS. 

“Thus, there is no possibility that the PFAS contamination is limited to a single unit or a single product line – it is now more than plausible that the entirety of defendants’ product line is contaminated and that this issue is systemic,” he alleges. 

Simply Orange PFAS false advertising claims

Despite this, the company continues to market Simply Orange as “natural” and give the impression it is safe and healthy through the use of terms like “pure filtered water” and “all-natural ingredients,” he says. 

He is looking to represent anyone who bought a Simply juice in the United States. 

He is suing for violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act and New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, as well as negligence and unjust enrichment, and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. 

What do you think of the claims in this Simply class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. 

The plaintiff is represented by Jason P. Sultzer and Philip J. Furia of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Nick Suciu III, Gary Klinger, Erin Ruben and J. Hunter Bryson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. 

The Simply Orange PFAS class action is Joseph Lurenz v. The Coca-Cola Co., Case No. 7:22-cv-10941, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Another class action claims Band-Aid products contain PFAS
• Costco class action alleges Kirkland fragrance-free baby wipes contain PFAS
• RiseWell children’s toothpaste contains PFAS, class action claims
• $316.5M BASF settlement resolves PFAS in drinking water claims