The Bloom Nutrition lawsuit landscape includes two active false advertising class actions (over Sparkling Energy drinks and colostrum supplements), two California Proposition 65 lead-exposure cases (one settled in 2023, one still active), a resolved website accessibility suit, and a law-firm investigation into the company’s subscription billing practices. Here’s what each action alleges and where it stands.
Sparkling Energy Drink False Advertising Suit
In May 2026, Bianca Marinelli filed a proposed class action against Bloom Nu LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Bloom deceptively markets its Sparkling Energy drinks as containing “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame.”1Law360. Bloom Nu Energy Drinks Have Artificial Ingredients, Suit Says According to the suit, the drinks contain commercially manufactured and chemically processed citric acid, which the plaintiff characterizes as an artificial flavoring ingredient that contradicts the labeling.2Juris Law Group. Class Actions Newsletter Food Beverage Bursor & Fisher represents the plaintiffs. The case is in its early stages as of mid-2026.
Colostrum and Collagen Supplement Suit
Plaintiffs Valentina Vassallo and Karl Nicoletti sued Bloom Nu LLC over its colostrum supplements, alleging that Bloom falsely advertises the products as “premium-grade,” “third-party tested,” and containing “40% IgG” (immunoglobulin G, a type of antibody). Independent lab testing cited in the complaint reportedly found the product contained only 10% or less of the claimed antibodies, which the plaintiffs call an “inferior grade of colostrum.”3Juris Law Group. Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter
The lawsuit challenges marketing claims including “Boosts Immunity,” “Supports Gut Health,” and “Nourishes Hair, Skin & Nails,” arguing that the lower IgG levels make those representations misleading. The plaintiffs say they paid a premium price of $29.99 per jar based on the quality claims. The complaint raises claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, other state consumer protection statutes, breach of warranty, fraud by omission, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, disgorgement of profits, and an injunction against the challenged labeling.3Juris Law Group. Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter
California Proposition 65 Lead Exposure Cases
Bloom has been targeted twice under California’s Proposition 65, which requires warnings when products expose consumers to listed chemicals including lead.
2023 Pre-Workout Settlement
In 2023, the advocacy group Keep America Safe and Beautiful alleged that Bloom’s High Energy Pre-Workout supplement in the “Bahama Mama” flavor exposed California consumers to lead without required warnings. Bloom settled in August 2023 for $23,500 total: a $1,500 civil penalty plus $22,000 in attorneys’ fees and investigation costs.4California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 Settlement Agreement Under the settlement, Bloom agreed not to sell or distribute covered products in California that expose a person to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day unless proper Proposition 65 warnings are provided. Bloom denied all allegations and admitted no liability.5California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice 2023-00725
2025 Daily Greens Case
In February 2025, Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. filed a new Proposition 65 lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court, targeting the “Inbloom Essential Elements Daily Greens & Multivitamin” product and again alleging failure to warn about lead exposure.6California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice 2025-00647 The complaint names Bloom Nutrition LLC and Syllable Studio LLC as defendants. It seeks civil penalties of at least $1 million (calculated at $2,500 per day per violation), a permanent injunction against distributing the products without proper warnings, and attorneys’ fees.7California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 Complaint 2025-00647 The case remains active as of mid-2026, with an initial case management conference that had been scheduled for August 2025.8PlainSite. Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Bloom Nutrition, LLC
Website Accessibility Case
In May 2021, Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs sued Bloom Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company’s website, tobeinbloom.com, was not sufficiently accessible to people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.9Accessibility.com. Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs vs Bloom Nutrition LLC The parties reached a settlement, filing a notice in January 2022, and Judge Gary R. Brown dismissed the case in May 2022 following a stipulation of dismissal.10UniCourt. Tenzer-Fuchs v. Bloom Nutrition, LLC
Subscription Billing Investigation
In May 2026, the law firm Migliaccio & Rathod LLP announced an investigation into Bloom Nutrition’s subscription billing practices, focusing on whether the company adequately discloses recurring billing terms for greens powders and wellness supplements sold through TikTok and influencer-linked campaigns. Consumer complaints cited by the firm include automatic enrollment into repeat-delivery programs without clear terms at checkout, continued shipments after cancellation attempts, a difficult cancellation process, and customer service delays on refund or cancellation requests.11ClassLawDC. Bloom Nutrition Greens Subscription Investigation No formal lawsuit had been filed as of mid-2026, and no state attorney general or federal agency involvement has been reported.
Arbitration Clause Limits Individual Consumer Suits
If you’re a customer thinking about your own claim, note that Bloom’s terms of service, updated in November 2024, require binding arbitration under the American Arbitration Association’s rules rather than court proceedings. Users waive the right to a jury trial and agree to bring claims only individually, not as part of a class. The terms also cap Bloom’s total liability at $100.12Bloom Nutrition. Terms of Service A severability provision states that if the class action waiver is found unenforceable, the entire arbitration clause becomes void. The pending false advertising class actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent broader groups of purchasers despite these terms; whether Bloom will move to compel arbitration is a question those cases may ultimately test.