The Nature Nate’s honey lawsuit was a 2019 federal class action accusing the company of falsely marketing its flagship product as “100% Pure, Raw & Unfiltered.” A judge in the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case on February 8, 2021 after three rounds of amended complaints, and no settlement was reached and no money was paid to consumers.1Top Class Actions. Nature Nate’s Class Action Says 100% Raw Honey Mislabeled
What the Plaintiffs Alleged
Marilyn Pierce and Anish Dave filed Pierce v. North Dallas Honey Company in February 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.2CourtListener. Pierce v. North Dallas Honey Company They brought two main claims against the company that sells Nature Nate’s honey.
The first was about the word “raw.” The plaintiffs said Nature Nate’s heated its honey to as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit during bottling. Heating above 105 degrees, they argued, destroys the enzymes that make raw honey distinct from processed honey, so the “raw” label was deceptive.3Law Street Media. Honey Company Requests Dismissal of Lawsuit Claiming False Messaging
The second was about the word “pure.” The plaintiffs claimed lab testing had detected added syrups in the honey, which would contradict the “100% Pure” claim on the label. Pierce acknowledged she could not say whether any adulteration happened at Nature Nate’s own facility or somewhere upstream in its supplier chain.1Top Class Actions. Nature Nate’s Class Action Says 100% Raw Honey Mislabeled
How the Case Was Dismissed
The lawsuit never got close to a jury. Two days after the original complaint was filed, Judge Jane J. Boyle issued an order to show cause, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 7, 2019.2CourtListener. Pierce v. North Dallas Honey Company
The case was later reassigned to Judge Brantley Starr. In March 2020, he granted Nature Nate’s motion to dismiss. The fraudulent concealment claim was thrown out with prejudice, meaning it could not be brought again. The fraudulent misrepresentation and deceptive trade practice claims were dismissed but the plaintiffs were given one more chance to replead after serving the notice required by state law.2CourtListener. Pierce v. North Dallas Honey Company
The plaintiffs took that chance. In May 2020 they filed a second amended complaint that added detail about proper honey-heating methods, consumer preferences for raw products, and a new state-law claim. Nature Nate’s moved to dismiss again, arguing the plaintiffs still had not adequately pleaded reliance or injury, and characterizing the requested relief as injunctive relief “masquerading as declaratory relief.”3Law Street Media. Honey Company Requests Dismissal of Lawsuit Claiming False Messaging
On February 8, 2021, the case was dismissed.1Top Class Actions. Nature Nate’s Class Action Says 100% Raw Honey Mislabeled The class was never certified. There was no settlement fund, no refund program, and no admission of wrongdoing.
Why the “Raw” Claim Was So Hard to Prove
The core problem for the plaintiffs was that federal law does not define “raw” honey. The FDA has never set a standard of identity for honey. An industry petition asking it to do so was filed in 2006 and denied in 2011.4Congressional Research Service. Honey: Overview of FDA Regulation
The FDA issued nonbinding guidance in 2018 recommending that products labeled “pure honey” should not contain added sweeteners. But that document creates no legally enforceable obligations and offers no definitions of “raw,” “unfiltered,” or “natural.”5U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Proper Labeling of Honey and Honey Products The USDA’s own description of raw honey — “honey as it exists in the beehive or as obtained by extraction, but not filtered” — says nothing about temperature.6Inside Class Actions. Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on Raw Honey Labeling Without an official rule saying that heating to a certain temperature disqualifies honey from being “raw,” the plaintiffs’ 105-degree threshold was their own standard, not the government’s.
What It Means for Consumers Who Bought Nature Nate’s
Because the case was dismissed rather than settled, there is nothing to claim. No fund was created, no notice went out to buyers, and no class was certified to represent purchasers. If you bought Nature Nate’s honey during the period covered by the complaint, this lawsuit produced no compensation and no ongoing claims process. The product remains on shelves at major retailers under the same “100% Pure, Raw & Unfiltered” label that was challenged.
Later Cases Followed the Same Pattern
The reasoning that ended the Nature Nate’s case has since been echoed by a federal appeals court in a similar suit against a different seller. In Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., a plaintiff argued that elevated hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) levels showed Walmart’s “Raw Honey” had been heated. On July 1, 2025, the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of that case.6Inside Class Actions. Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on Raw Honey Labeling
The court found that HMF can rise from storage length, geographic origin, and chemical composition as well as heating, so the plaintiff had not shown heating was the likely cause. It also rejected the 10 mg/kg threshold the plaintiff cited, noting that number came from a honey seller’s marketing site and that the same lawyers had used 40 mg/kg in other suits, which the court called a “moving target.” The court warned against a “sue first, ask questions later” approach to labeling claims.7Washington Legal Foundation. Wertymer v. Walmart: The Seventh Circuit’s Raw Lesson for Class Action Plaintiffs and Their Lawyers
The takeaway from the Nature Nate’s case, reinforced by the later ruling, is that consumer suits over “raw” honey labels have struggled to survive early motions to dismiss when the industry lacks a binding legal definition to measure the label against.