Mott’s ReaLemon and ReaLime products aren’t 100% juice as advertised, class action lawsuit says

ReaLemon and ReaLime class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Two consumers, plaintiffs Mel Rich and Jess Lopez, filed a class action lawsuit against Mott’s LLP.
• Why: Rich and Lopez claim Mott’s falsely advertises its ReaLemon and ReaLime products as being made with only natural ingredients.
• Where: The Mott’s class action was filed in Delaware federal court.

Two consumers have hit Mott’s LLP, the maker ReaLemon and ReaLime, with a class action lawsuit alleging the company deceives consumers by advertising the products as “real” and “natural” when they contain artificial preservatives. 

The ReaLemon and ReaLime class action lawsuit was filed March 3 in Delaware federal court.

Plaintiffs Mel Rich and Jesse Lopez allege that Mott’s falsely markets the ReaLemon and ReaLime products as “100% Juice” and “natural strength,” despite containing artificial preservatives such as sodium benzoate and sodium metabisulfite.

The plaintiffs argue that the labeling of the products, which includes images of fresh lemons and limes and statements like “Juice of about [2] quality lemons,” reinforces the impression that the products are natural.

They claim that a reasonable consumer would not expect the products to contain artificial preservatives based on the front label.

Mott’s class action alleges misbranding of ReaLemon, ReaLime under FDA regulations

The ReaLemon and ReaLime class action lawsuit also alleges that the products are misbranded under state and federal regulations.

The plaintiffs point to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that requires products labeled as “100% Juice” to disclose non-juice ingredients, such as preservatives, on the front label.

They claim that Mott’s fails to comply with this rule by using the phrase “with added ingredients” instead of “with added preservatives.”

The plaintiffs claim that Mott’s intentionally designed the labels to deceive consumers, who are willing to pay more for products they believe are all-natural.

They allege the company uses different labeling for small packets of the products sold to restaurants, which do disclose the presence of preservatives.

Rich and Lopez seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the products in the last four years, as well as subclasses in California, New York, and several other states.

They are suing for violations of consumer protection laws in California and New York, as well as unjust enrichment and fraud by omission. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the class action, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and fees and costs.

A recent class action filing against Smucker’s alleges its ‘Natural’ fruit spreads contain artificially manufactured citric acid.

What do you think of the allegations made in the Mott’s class action? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by R. Grant Dick IV and Kevin D. Levitsky of Cooch and Taylor P.A. and Yeremey O. Krivoshey and Joel D. Smith of Smith Krivoshey, PC.

The Mott’s class action lawsuit is Mel Rich, et al. v. Mott’s LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00243, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Nature’s Path protein content class action survives dismissal attempt
• GM recalls 90k Cadillacs and Chevrolets due to possible faulty transmissions
• Recent Apple class actions spotlight safety issues with smartwatches, Siri, and Arcade
• Class action claims Girl Scout cookies contain heavy metals, pesticides