Sparkling Ice Class Action Says Drinks Need ‘Artificially Flavored’ Label

A class action lawsuit alleges that Sparkling Ice beverages contain artificial flavoring but are not labeled as such, which is required by law.

Plaintiffs Terri Garfinkel and Jessica Augustine say they have purchased Sparkling Ice drinks multiple times over the last several years.

Allegedly, the consumers believed that Sparkling Ice maker the Talking Rain Beverage Company would follow the law in labeling their products.

The plaintiffs say that they, and many other reasonable consumers, relied on this belief when making their purchasing decision.

According to the Sparkling Ice class action, a range of drinks are mislabeled, including the Pomegranate Blueberry, Strawberry Lemonade, Peach Nectarine, Crisp Apple, Ginger Lime, Lemon Lime, Black Cherry, Cherry Limeade, Strawberry Watermelon, Pink Grapefruit, Orange Mango, Coconut Pineapple, Classic Lemonade, Grape Raspberry, Pomegranate Blueberry, and Kiwi Strawberry Sparkling Ice flavors.

The two consumers site the California Health & Safety Code, which states that “any food is misbranded if it bears or contains any artificial flavoring, artificial coloring, or chemical preservative, unless its labelling states that fact.”

The Sparkling Ice labeling class action lawsuit argues that the drinks contain d-malic acid, an artificial flavoring.

Allegedly, malic acid occurs naturally and is often used because it gives food a tart, fruity taste. The Sparkling Ice class action lawsuit argues that Sparkling Ice does not contain malic acid, but d-malic acid, an artificial substance that is found in gasoline.

According to the Sparkling Ice class action, d-malic acid should fall under what the California Health & Safety Code calls an “artificial flavoring,” but Sparkling Ice does not note the inclusion of artificial flavoring on its labels.

Garfinkel and Augustine argue that the company intentionally doesn’t include a proper label noting that the products contain artificial flavoring because such label would dissuade customers from purchasing the beverages.

They Sparkling Ice class action claims that customers have a preference for natural foods, and make purchasing decisions in line with this preference.

Allegedly, the Talking Rain Beverage Company attempted to cater to this preference by not labeling its products as containing artificial flavoring, in an effort to increase the company’s sales.

Garfinkel and Augustine claim that the company unjustly enriched itself by not disclosing to consumers that the products contain d-malic acid.

The Sparkling Ice class action states that numerous consumers would not have purchased the Sparkling Ice products, or would not have paid as much for them, had they known the drinks contained an artificial flavoring, especially had they known that the chemical is one that is in gasoline.

Based on this, the two plaintiffs claim that they and many other putative Class Members were financially injured by Talking Rain Beverage Company’s alleged deception.

Garfinkel and Augustine are represented by Ronald A. Marron, Michael T. Houchin, and Tania Babaie of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron.

The Sparkling Ice Artificial Flavoring Class Action Lawsuit is Jessica Augustine, et al. v. Talking Rain Beverage Company Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02576-CAB-BGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.