The Fairlife protein shake lawsuit most people are searching for is the consolidated class action over marketing that portrayed Fairlife dairy as coming from humanely treated cows. That case settled for $21 million in 2022 and is closed to new claims. A newer class action filed in California in 2025 raises similar animal-welfare claims along with environmental and recycling allegations, and it remains active. A separate lawsuit over the Core Power Vanilla High Protein Milk Shake, filed in 2020, targeted the product’s vanilla labeling rather than its dairy sourcing.
What the Lawsuits Allege
The core allegation across the animal-welfare cases is “humane-washing”: that Fairlife and its co-defendants marketed products as coming from cows raised with “extraordinary care and comfort,” used pastoral imagery, and invited consumers to visit Fair Oaks Farm to see the care firsthand, while the actual supply chain involved systemic abuse.1Animal Legal Defense Fund. Challenging Fairlife’s Deceptive Marketing Practices Consumers said they paid premium prices based on those claims.2DiCello Levitt. Fairlife and Deceptive Animal Welfare Claims
The trigger was undercover footage released in June 2019 by Animal Recovery Mission, filmed at a Fair Oaks Farms barn in Indiana that supplied Fairlife. It showed workers kicking, throwing, dragging, and branding newborn calves, and leaving dead calves in pens.3CNN. Fair Oaks Farms Calves Abuse4Chicago Tribune. Fair Oaks Farms Owner Says Video of Alleged Cow Abuse Broke My Heart Consumer class actions followed within weeks, alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of state consumer protection laws.1Animal Legal Defense Fund. Challenging Fairlife’s Deceptive Marketing Practices
In October 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases as In re Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2909, before Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. in the Northern District of Illinois.5GovInfo. JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 2909 Defendants included Fairlife LLC, The Coca-Cola Company, Select Milk Producers, Fair Oaks Farms, and Mike and Sue McCloskey.6Food Dive. Fairlife $21M Animal Abuse Settlement
The $21 Million Settlement
Judge Dow gave preliminary approval to the $21 million settlement on April 27, 2022, and final approval on September 28, 2022, finding it “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”6Food Dive. Fairlife $21M Animal Abuse Settlement7ClassAction.org. Final Approval Order, In Re Fairlife Milk Products The case was dismissed with prejudice.
Who Was Eligible and What Payouts Looked Like
The settlement class covered anyone who purchased any Fairlife or Fair Oaks Farms milk product on or before April 27, 2022.8Consumer Action. Fairlife Milk Products Settlement Claimants could recover up to 25% of their purchase prices, capped at $80 with proof of purchase or $20 without proof. Filing under both categories capped the recovery at $100. Actual payments varied with the volume of claims filed. Some claimants reported checks around $92; others received amounts in the $14 to $36 range.9Top Class Actions. Fairlife Milk Cow Mistreatment $21M Class Action Settlement
The claim filing deadline was December 27, 2022.8Consumer Action. Fairlife Milk Products Settlement That deadline has passed, and the settlement is closed. If you didn’t file by then, you can no longer claim money from this case.
The court awarded class counsel $7 million in fees (one-third of the fund) plus $95,198.99 in expenses, and each of the nearly 20 class representatives received a $3,500 service award.7ClassAction.org. Final Approval Order, In Re Fairlife Milk Products
Reforms Fairlife Agreed To
Beyond the money, the settlement required a multiyear injunctive program:
- Independent third-party audits of supplying farms for three years.
- Annual refresher training in animal handling for farm workers.
- A ban on individuals with criminal animal cruelty convictions from animal-facing positions.
- A rule that no animal go unfed for more than 24 hours, barring emergencies.
- Mandatory routine veterinary visits at supplying farms.
Fairlife also agreed to camera monitoring and a third-party animal welfare advisory board with increased unannounced audits.2DiCello Levitt. Fairlife and Deceptive Animal Welfare Claims6Food Dive. Fairlife $21M Animal Abuse Settlement The company later reported investing over $8 million in animal welfare oversight and camera installations at supplier farms.10BevNET. Animal Rights Group Alleges Fairlife Is Still Sourcing Milk From Abusive Farms
The 2025 California Lawsuit Still Pending
On February 26, 2025, a new federal class action was filed in the Central District of California, Bhotiwihok et al. v. Fairlife LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-1650. The named plaintiffs are Aryout Michael Thomas Bhotiwihok, Jeremiah Cornelius, and Randy Paugh. Defendants include Fairlife LLC, The Coca-Cola Company, Mike and Sue McCloskey, and Select Milk Producers.11ClassAction.org. Bhotiwihok et al. v. Fairlife LLC et al.
This complaint reaches further than the 2019 case. It relies on new ARM investigations at Rainbow Valley Dairy and Butterfield Dairy in Buckeye, Arizona, released the same day the suit was filed. The footage documented workers punching, kicking, whipping, and dragging calves, calves confined in wooden crates for over five months, animals left without shade in temperatures exceeding 135°F, and botched euthanasia.12Animal Recovery Mission. Operation Butterfield Dairy13Animal Recovery Mission. Operation Rainbow Valley Dairy Investigators also alleged illegal carcass disposal near waterways and leaking waste pits.14Animal Recovery Mission. Operation Fairlife Arizona Fairlife stated it has “zero tolerance for animal abuse” and cut ties with both farms; the United Dairymen of Arizona suspended deliveries; and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and USDA opened investigations.15Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Fairlife Cuts Ties With Two Arizona Farms Tied to Animal Cruelty
The California complaint also targets Fairlife’s environmental and packaging marketing. It alleges the company’s “Recycle Me” label is misleading because the bottles are made of opaque pigmented PET containing titanium dioxide, which the plaintiffs say makes them non-recyclable in practice and under applicable law.11ClassAction.org. Bhotiwihok et al. v. Fairlife LLC et al.
In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II ruled on Fairlife’s motion to dismiss. He allowed plaintiffs to proceed on the theory that the Fairlife logo itself is misleading, writing: “When this brand name is superimposed on a cartoon picture of a cow, the implication becomes unmistakable: the cows are living a fair life.” He found the “Recycle Me” claims sufficient under California law but noted that a state safe harbor provision bars recyclability litigation until October 2026. Judge Wright dismissed Coca-Cola from the case, citing insufficient evidence of the parent company’s involvement, and dismissed certain claims where plaintiffs hadn’t shown reliance on Fairlife’s website representations. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend.16Courthouse News Service. Fairlife Must Face Consumers Claim That Its Logo Is Misleading
According to ARM’s website, a consumer class action against Fairlife and Coca-Cola related to the Arizona farms was resolved on May 13, 2026, under a court-confidential stipulation. Terms have not been made public.14Animal Recovery Mission. Operation Fairlife Arizona
The Core Power Vanilla Shake Lawsuit
A separate case targeted the actual protein shake product. Filed in September 2020 in the Southern District of New York as Ynfante v. Fairlife LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-07776, the complaint alleged that packaging for Core Power Vanilla High Protein Milk Shake misled consumers into believing the vanilla flavor came from real vanilla beans.17ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Consumers Misled About Vanilla Content in Core Power
Plaintiffs alleged that much of the taste came from non-vanilla compounds including maltol, piperonal, and vanillin, and that the word “Vanilla,” the term “Natural Flavors,” and images of vanilla bean pods on the packaging created a false impression. Because those compounds modify a standardized vanilla ingredient, the lawsuit argued they should be classified as artificial flavors.17ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Consumers Misled About Vanilla Content in Core Power Claims included violations of New York consumer protection laws, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. This case was not part of the animal welfare MDL.18Top Class Actions. Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Natural Flavors in Core Power Protein Shake