Naked Juice Lawsuit: ‘All Natural’ and ‘No Sugar Added’ Cases

September 8, 2026

The Naked Juice lawsuits are two separate class actions accusing the brand of misleading consumers about what was in its bottles. The first, filed in 2011, challenged “All Natural” and “Non-GMO” claims and ended in a $9 million settlement in 2014, with PepsiCo agreeing to drop “All Natural” from its labels. The second, filed in 2016 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, targeted “No Sugar Added” marketing and packaging that emphasized ingredients like kale when the drinks were mostly cheaper fruit juices. That case settled in early 2017 with a label redesign.

The 2011 “All Natural” Case

Five separate class-action complaints were consolidated into Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-08276, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before Judge John A. Kronstadt.¹ Lead plaintiff Natalie Pappas and the other named plaintiffs sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.²

The complaint listed ingredients the plaintiffs said were not natural at all. Fibersol-2, a digestion-resistant maltodextrin derived from cornstarch. Fructooligosaccharides commercially synthesized from inulin or sucrose. Ascorbic acid made through industrial chemical processes. Soy lecithin extracted using hexane, a petroleum byproduct. Synthetic vitamins including niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride, and cyanocobalamin, along with minerals like zinc oxide.²

On the “Non-GMO” side, plaintiffs alleged that “Acai Machine,” “Protein Zone,” and “Pomegranate Acai” contained soy ingredients derived from genetically modified crops, and that “Blue Machine” contained fibersol-2 produced from genetically modified corn.² The class period ran from September 27, 2007 through the final disposition of the case.³

What the Settlement Required

PepsiCo settled rather than go to trial. Judge Kronstadt granted preliminary approval on August 7, 2013 and entered final judgment on January 22, 2014.¹

A $9 million common fund for consumers who bought Naked Juice during the class period. Claimants with proof of purchase could receive up to $75; those without receipts could receive between $5 and $45.³⁴
Removal of “All Natural” from Naked Juice labels.⁵
Independent testing by Eurofins GeneScan to substantiate Non-GMO claims for at least three years, and appointment of a quality control manager to oversee testing for at least five years.⁵
Maintenance of an electronic database to verify product ingredients.⁶

The court valued the injunctive relief alone at roughly $1.4 million.³

What Class Members Actually Received

The claims deadline was December 17, 2013, and checks went out on June 23, 2014.⁷ After class counsel’s fees of roughly $2.5 million (plus about $81,500 in expenses), a separate $52,800 fee award, and administrative costs, the remainder was divided among what were described as hundreds of thousands of claimants. Individual payments were modest compared with the advertised maximums.¹ The fund has been exhausted and the case is closed.

The 2016 “No Sugar Added” Case

In October 2016, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the law firm Reese LLP filed a second class action on behalf of consumers Dina Lipkind, Lyle Takeshita, and Chad Fenwick. Lipkind v. PepsiCo, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05506, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.⁸ This time the target was not the word “natural” but the way the labels talked about sugar and ingredients.

“No Sugar Added” was technically accurate, but CSPI argued it left consumers thinking the drinks were low in sugar. A 15.2-ounce bottle of Pomegranate Blueberry contained 61 grams of sugar, 20 grams more than a 12-ounce can of Pepsi.⁹
Products such as “Kale Blazer” were marketed with imagery and slogans emphasizing kale and “dark leafy goodness,” but the drinks were predominantly cheaper fruit juices like apple and orange juice.⁸
Vitamins shown on the label were added by the manufacturer rather than sourced from the pictured fruits and vegetables.¹⁰
The complaint alleged PepsiCo omitted a required “not a low calorie food” disclosure alongside its “No Sugar Added” claim.¹¹

PepsiCo denied the marketing was misleading, saying all Naked products “proudly use fruits and/or vegetables with no sugar added” and that sugar content was clearly listed on nutritional labels.⁹¹²¹⁰

Why “All Natural” Was Litigated in Court

Both cases moved through the courts because the FDA has never issued a formal definition for “natural” on food labels. The agency has said that “from a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.”¹³ Its historical position has been that it will not object to the term as long as a food contains no added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

With no federal standard on the books, there was no rule for a company to violate directly, and no federal preemption to block state consumer-protection suits.¹⁴ Private class actions became the practical enforcement mechanism. Naked Juice acknowledged the gap in a 2013 statement: “until there is more detailed regulatory guidance around the word ‘natural,’ we’ve chosen not to use ‘all natural’ to describe our juices and smoothies.”¹³ As of 2026, the FDA still has not issued a final rule defining the term.

Who Owns Naked Juice Today

Both lawsuits named PepsiCo, which acquired Naked Juice in 2006 when the brand had annual sales above $150 million.¹⁵ PepsiCo no longer owns the brand outright. In August 2021, it sold Naked Juice along with Tropicana to a joint venture majority-owned by private equity firm PAI Partners, taking $3.3 billion in after-tax proceeds and keeping a 39% stake.¹⁶ The joint venture launched in 2022 as Tropicana Brands Group, and Naked remains in its portfolio.¹⁷

1
Truthinadvertising.org. Pappas v. Naked Juice Final Judgment
2
Classaction.org. Naked Juice Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
3
Truthinadvertising.org. Pappas v. Naked Juice Order re Preliminary Approval
4
Food Dive. PepsiCo’s $9M Naked Juice Settlement to Award Consumers Up to $75
5
Truthinadvertising.org. Naked Juice Class Action
6
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. “Natural” False Ad Settlements for $9 Million
7
Top Class Actions. Naked Juice Class Action Settlement Appeals Resolved
8
CSPI. PepsiCo – Naked Juice
9
Fortune. PepsiCo Lawsuit Naked Juice
10
Truthinadvertising.org. Naked Beverages Class Action
11
Top Class Actions. PepsiCo Class Action Naked Juice No Sugar Added Claims
12
Food Dive. Naked Juice Gets New Labels in Court Settlement
13
Food Dive. PepsiCo’s Naked Juice Agrees to Ditch All Natural Label Claim
14
Salon. We’re Losing the War on Big Food
15
Reuters. PepsiCo Buys Naked Juice From North Castle
16
Yahoo Finance. Why PepsiCo Just Sold Its Tropicana and Naked Juice Brands
17
Tropicana Brands Group. About Us