LMNT Lawsuit: Class Action Claims, Response, and Reformulation

The LMNT lawsuit landscape has two sides. On one, consumers have filed at least four class actions since May 2025 accusing the electrolyte-drink company of hiding maltodextrin, a processed corn-derived additive, behind “natural flavors” on its labels while marketing the product as all-natural and keto-friendly. On the other, LMNT itself sued a health-rating app in June 2026 for defamation over claims that its unflavored powder contained illegal levels of lead. None of the consumer cases has been settled or certified as of mid-2026.

What the Class Actions Allege

The consumer suits center on a single ingredient: maltodextrin. LMNT uses it as a “flavor carrier” to spread liquid natural flavors evenly through its powdered stick packs, at roughly 300 to 450 milligrams per serving, which the company says amounts to one or two calories.¹ Plaintiffs say that quantity was never disclosed on packaging and was instead folded into the phrase “natural flavors.”²

That mattered, the complaints argue, because of how LMNT sold the product. The company’s packaging and marketing used phrases like “All Natural Ingredients,” “No Artificial Ingredients,” “No Dodgy Ingredients,” and “Paleo-Keto Friendly.”³ Plaintiffs describe maltodextrin as a heavily processed additive with a glycemic index as high as 110, which they say is fundamentally at odds with keto and paleo diets and with any “clean” or “whole food” claim.⁴ One complaint pointed out that per-serving maltodextrin actually exceeds the combined per-serving amounts of the two electrolytes LMNT highlights on its labels, potassium and magnesium.² The New York complaint went further, alleging maltodextrin carries health risks including possible links to intestinal inflammation.⁵

The Four Consumer Cases and Where They Stand

Vaughn v. Drink LMNT (Montana)

The first suit, Vaughn, et al. v. Drink LMNT Inc., was filed May 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. It seeks damages and equitable relief for a proposed nationwide class plus subclasses for California, Arkansas, and Montana buyers.³ LMNT moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Judge William W. Mercer heard argument on May 28, 2026, and as of early June 2026 the motion was submitted and awaiting a written ruling.⁶

Sciortino v. Drink LMNT (New York)

Michael Sciortino and Josh Sawyer filed Sciortino et al. v. Drink LMNT, Inc. on June 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of New York General Business Law tied to LMNT’s “clean” and “minimally processed” marketing.² LMNT filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in September 2025. As of April 2026, that motion remained pending before Judge Hector Gonzalez.⁵

Thomas v. Drink LMNT (Florida)

Joseph Thomas v. Drink LMNT, Inc. was filed July 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint brings three causes of action: violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. It seeks class certification for Florida, Nevada, and national classes along with damages, disgorgement, and an injunction against the marketing.⁴ This is the case that has moved furthest toward resolution. It was administratively closed on April 27, 2026, pending mediation, with a mediation hearing scheduled for August 11, 2026.⁷ Cristina Pierson of Kelley Uustal represents the plaintiff.

Gianne v. Drink LMNT (California)

A fourth case, Natalie Gianne v. Drink LMNT, Inc., was filed in 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder.⁸ Publicly available detail on the specific allegations is limited.

None of these cases has produced a settlement, a class certification ruling, or a claims process. There is nothing for consumers to file for at this stage.

LMNT’s Response and Product Reformulation

LMNT has not issued a formal public response to the lawsuits, but the company has addressed maltodextrin directly. Co-founder Robb Wolf wrote in October 2024 that maltodextrin is not listed as a separate ingredient because “it’s a flavor carrier rather than an added ingredient,” and argued that the amount used produces a glycemic load “well below 1.”⁹

The company is also reformulating. LMNT is replacing maltodextrin with tapioca fiber, a soluble fiber from cassava root with a glycemic index close to zero. As of April 2026, the Lemonade Salt and Pink Lemonade flavors already use tapioca fiber, and Raspberry Salt and Orange Salt were rolling out with the new formulation. LMNT has said it plans to complete the switch across remaining flavors within roughly a year. For buyers who want to avoid flavor carriers altogether, the company points to its Raw Unflavored powder and its Sparkling liquid products, neither of which contains maltodextrin or tapioca fiber.¹

LMNT’s Defamation Suit Against Oasis

Anyone researching LMNT lawsuits will also come across a case LMNT filed, not one filed against it. On June 10, 2026, LMNT sued Live Oasis, LLC and its founder Cormac Hayden in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, bringing claims for defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition.¹⁰

The dispute goes back to December 16, 2024, when Oasis, a product-rating app, posted across five social media platforms that LMNT’s unflavored powder contained “seven times the legal limit of lead,” citing 27 parts per billion. LMNT’s complaint alleges that Oasis made a unit-conversion error, treating a bulk concentration as a per-serving dose and overstating the lead content by a factor of roughly 300. LMNT says actual per-serving lead works out to about 0.0945 micrograms, or about 19% of California’s Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose level.¹⁰

According to the complaint, CEO James Murphy rebutted the posts publicly the same day, walked Hayden through the lab reports and math on a Zoom call on January 21, 2025, and Hayden acknowledged the errors and repeatedly committed to correct the data. The original posts stayed up for roughly 17 months. Oasis published a retraction in May 2026 admitting to “a calculation error” that “inflated the heavy metals,” but LMNT says the retraction reached only about 1% of the original audience and the product’s 3-out-of-100 score remained on the app. LMNT is seeking injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. The case is before Judge Jennifer L. Hall, and LMNT is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.¹⁰

Earlier Proposition 65 Settlement

This is not LMNT’s first legal exposure. In 2021, the Environmental Research Center filed a Proposition 65 case in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that LMNT’s Orange Salt and Chocolate Salt drink mixes exposed California consumers to lead without the warnings state law requires. The matter settled for a total payment of $20,000 split among a civil penalty, attorney fees, and an additional settlement payment. LMNT was permanently enjoined from selling covered products in California that expose consumers to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day without a Proposition 65 warning.¹¹

1
Drink LMNT. Natural Flavors
2
ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims LMNT Electrolyte Drink Mixes Falsely Advertised as Clean, Minimally Processed
3
NutraIngredients. Lawsuit Targets LMNT Over All Natural and Keto-Friendly Claims
4
Truth in Advertising. Thomas v. Drink LMNT, Inc. Complaint
5
PACER Monitor. Sciortino et al v. Drink LMNT, Inc.
6
PACER Monitor. Vaughn et al v. Drink LMNT, Inc.
7
PACER Monitor. Thomas v. Drink LMNT, Inc.
8
Law360. Natalie Gianne v. Drink LMNT, Inc. et al
9
The Barbell Spin. LMNT Caught Up in Salty Maltodextrin Controversy
10
Courthouse News Service. Drink LMNT, Inc. v. Live Oasis, LLC et al Complaint
11
California Attorney General. Prop65 60-Day Notice 2021-00819