Fairlife Lawsuit: From $21M Settlement to New Federal Suit

The Fairlife lawsuit actually refers to two separate cases: a consolidated federal class action that ended in a $21 million settlement in September 2022, and a new federal class action filed in California in February 2025 that alleges the same pattern of animal abuse and misleading marketing has continued at Fairlife’s supplier farms. The 2022 settlement is closed. The 2025 case is active, and in February 2026 a federal judge allowed part of it to move forward while dismissing Coca-Cola from the suit with leave to amend.

What the Lawsuits Are About

Both cases center on the same theory: that Fairlife charged a premium price on the strength of animal-welfare promises it did not keep. The company’s labels and advertising promised “extraordinary care and comfort” for its cows, depicted cows grazing in green pastures, described the milk as coming from “family farms,” and promoted a “zero tolerance for animal cruelty” policy on its website.¹

Plaintiffs call this “humane-washing.” They allege the milk in fact came from large-scale factory operations where undercover footage documented workers beating, kicking, and mutilating calves. The first wave of footage, released in June 2019 by the Animal Recovery Mission, was recorded at Fair Oaks Farms in northwest Indiana, a Fairlife supplier at the time.² The lawsuits that followed did not sue over the abuse itself. They sued over what consumers had been told when they paid for the milk.³

The 2022 Settlement: $21 Million, Now Closed

Dozens of individual suits filed after the 2019 footage were consolidated as MDL No. 2909 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Robert M. Dow Jr.⁴ The defendants were Fairlife LLC, The Coca-Cola Company, Select Milk Producers, Fair Oaks Farms, and Mike and Sue McCloskey individually. The parties reached a $21 million agreement in April 2022, and Judge Dow granted final approval on September 28, 2022.⁵

Who Qualified and What They Got

The class covered anyone who purchased qualifying Fairlife or Fair Oaks Farms dairy products on or before April 27, 2022. Qualifying products included Fairlife ultra-filtered milk, Core Power protein shakes, Nutrition Plan, DHA milk, Yup!, Smart Snacks, Good Moo’d, yogurt, ice cream, creamer, and Fair Oaks Farms branded items.⁶

Approved claimants received 25 percent of the purchase price of qualifying products, capped at $80 with proof of purchase or $20 without. The claim deadline was December 27, 2022, and the final deadline to collect a payout was November 18, 2023. If you did not file by those dates, the settlement is closed to you; no further claims are being accepted.⁶

How the Fund Was Divided

Of the $21 million fund, the court awarded $7 million in attorneys’ fees, approved $95,198.99 in litigation expenses, and gave each of the 19 class representatives a $3,500 service award. The rest went to class members through the claims process, with no reversion to the defendants. Any leftover funds were to be split between the Center for Food Safety and the U.S. Dairy Education & Training Consortium.⁵

Supply-Chain Reforms the Settlement Required

The settlement also required a multiyear accountability program at Fairlife’s supplier farms: mandatory annual third-party audits for three years, new and annual refresher humane-handling training, a ban on hiring anyone with a criminal animal-cruelty conviction for animal-facing jobs, a rule that no animal go unfed for more than 24 hours except in emergencies, and routine veterinary visits.⁷ Retired Judge Wayne R. Andersen was appointed independent monitor, with Validus Verification Services as auditor. Fairlife bore the cost.⁵ Fairlife has said separately that it spent over $8 million on animal-welfare measures at its suppliers.⁸

The 2025 Federal Lawsuit

The reforms did not end the litigation. On February 26, 2025, plaintiffs Aryout Michael Thomas Bhotiwihok, Jeremiah Cornelius, and Randy Paugh filed a new class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:25-cv-01650). The defendants are Fairlife LLC, The Coca-Cola Company, Select Milk Producers, and Mike and Sue McCloskey.⁹

The complaint relies on a six-month undercover investigation ARM conducted from July to December 2024 at two Arizona dairies, Rainbow Valley and Butterfield Dairy in Buckeye, both owned by the DeJong family and supplying Fairlife through the United Dairymen of Arizona cooperative. ARM documented workers punching, kicking, whipping, and dragging calves, using electric prods on pregnant cows, breaking cows’ tails, and botching euthanasia, along with calves left without food, water, or medical care in heat reaching 135 degrees Fahrenheit. The investigation also alleged illegal carcass disposal near waterways outside Phoenix.¹⁰ Fairlife cut ties with both farms and reiterated its zero-tolerance policy, noting that it is a milk processor rather than a farm operator.¹¹ The Arizona Department of Agriculture took over the investigation from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office; as of early 2025, no criminal charges had been filed.¹²

The 2025 complaint also raises a new theory beyond animal welfare. It alleges that Fairlife bottles labeled “Recycle Me” are actually made of opaque pigmented PET plastic containing titanium dioxide, a contaminant that plaintiffs say makes the bottles non-recyclable. They contend they bought Fairlife products in reliance on both the humane-treatment messaging and the recyclability label.⁹

Where the Case Stands After the February 2026 Ruling

On February 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The practical results for anyone tracking the case:

Coca-Cola was dismissed, with the court finding that the complaint had not adequately alleged direct involvement or an agency relationship. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend.¹³
Mike and Sue McCloskey had already been dismissed in January 2026 for lack of personal jurisdiction in California.¹³
Most consumer protection and warranty claims were dismissed with leave to amend.
Claims based on the Fairlife logo itself survived. Judge Wright rejected the argument that the brand name and cow imagery were nonactionable puffery, finding that the logo creates a testable factual impression about how the company’s cows are treated.¹⁴
The unjust enrichment claim survived.
The recyclability claims were dismissed without leave to amend but without prejudice, because a California safe harbor shields such claims until October 2026.¹³

Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies the judge identified. No class has been certified, no settlement has been reached, and there is nothing for consumers to claim at this stage.

A Separate New Mexico Thread

A dairy called Woodcrest Dairy in Roswell, New Mexico was named in related litigation after ARM released footage alleging mistreatment there. Plaintiffs contend Woodcrest’s milk entered the Fairlife supply chain. Fairlife and Coca-Cola have denied that Woodcrest supplied Fairlife during the relevant period, and Select Milk Producers has argued the plaintiffs failed to prove the dairy was a supplier at the time of the alleged abuse. The New Mexico Livestock Board confirmed the dairy was under investigation.¹⁵

Coca-Cola’s Position

Coca-Cola entered Fairlife as a joint venture partner with Select Milk Producers, holding a 42.5 percent stake at launch.¹⁶ It acquired the remaining stake on January 3, 2020, roughly seven months after the ARM footage from Indiana, making Fairlife a wholly owned subsidiary.¹⁷ Coca-Cola was a defendant in the 2022 settlement and was named again in the 2025 complaint before being dismissed with leave to amend in February 2026. The 2025 complaint alleges that Select Milk Producers continues to manage much of the Fairlife supply chain and that the McCloskeys remain involved in the brand’s marketing.¹⁸

1
Animal Legal Defense Fund. Challenging Fairlife’s Deceptive Marketing Practices
2
NBC Chicago. More Undercover Video of Fair Oaks Farms Set for Release
3
Courthouse News Service. Milk Drinkers Blast Producers Claims of Humane Cow Treatment
4
CourtListener. In re Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
5
ClassAction.org. In re Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation Final Approval Order
6
The Krazy Coupon Lady. Fairlife Milk Settlement
7
DiCello Levitt. Fairlife and Deceptive Animal Welfare Claims
8
Supply Chain Dive. Coca-Cola’s Fairlife Milk Abuse Farms Animal Rights Lawsuit
9
ClassAction.org. Bhotiwihok et al. v. Fairlife LLC et al.
10
Animal Recovery Mission. Operation Fairlife Arizona
11
Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Fairlife Cuts Ties With 2 Arizona Farms Tied to Animal Cruelty
12
ABC15. Arizona Department of Agriculture Investigating Reports of Abuse at Dairy Farms
13
Truth in Advertising. Thomas v. Fairlife Dismissal Order
14
Courthouse News Service. Fairlife Must Face Consumers’ Claim That Its Logo Is Misleading
15
KOB 4. New Mexico Dairy Named in Lawsuit Over Fairlife Animal Welfare Claims
16
The Coca-Cola Company. Who Owns Fairlife
17
WebWire. The Coca-Cola Company Acquires Fairlife
18
Courthouse News Service. Bhotiwihok v. Fairlife Class Action Complaint