The Poland Spring water lawsuit is a federal class action, Patane v. Nestlé Waters North America, Inc., alleging that Poland Spring’s “100% Natural Spring Water” is actually ordinary groundwater pumped from wells. Filed in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the case has survived two motions to dismiss and three summary judgment attempts. As of August 2025, the court had not yet decided whether to certify a class, and no trial date had been set.1Connecticut Law Tribune. Billion-Dollar Lawsuit? Big Law Gathers for Nestlé Class Action
What the Lawsuit Alleges
Lead plaintiff Mark Patane and ten other consumers from eight states sued Nestlé Waters North America, then the parent of the Poland Spring brand, claiming that “not one drop” of Poland Spring water comes from a source that qualifies as a natural spring under federal law. The complaint says Nestlé sells roughly one billion gallons of Poland Spring water each year in the United States, all labeled with mountain and forest imagery suggesting a pristine spring source.2Reuters. Nestle to Face Lawsuit Saying Poland Spring Water Not From a Spring
According to the plaintiffs, the company has been bottling ordinary groundwater from drilled wells since at least 1993. To preserve the appearance of compliance with federal labeling rules, the lawsuit alleges, Nestlé built “man-made, phony springs” at seven sites and used machinery at an eighth to keep the long-defunct original Poland Spring flowing artificially.3Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Nestle Bottled Water Litigation The original Poland Spring in the town of Poland, Maine, “commercially ran dry” nearly fifty years ago, according to the complaint.2Reuters. Nestle to Face Lawsuit Saying Poland Spring Water Not From a Spring
The FDA Rule the Case Turns On
The dispute rides on a single regulation. Under 21 CFR § 165.110, spring water must be “derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth.” If a company collects water through a borehole instead of at the spring opening, there must be a “measurable hydraulic connection” between the two, demonstrated by a scientifically valid method, and the spring itself must continue to flow naturally to the surface.4eCFR. 21 CFR 165.110 – Bottled Water
The plaintiffs argue Poland Spring’s sources are wells drilled into aquifers with no natural surface flow and no genuine hydraulic connection to any spring. The company has consistently taken the opposite position. Before the lawsuit was filed, a letter from Maine’s senior environmental hydrologist confirmed that all eight of Poland Spring’s water sources met the FDA standard, and Maine’s Drinking Water Program is the state entity that implements those federal rules.5Bangor Daily News. Poland Spring Says It Meets FDA’s Definition of Spring Water
Key Rulings Along the Way
The case has moved slowly. In May 2018, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer dismissed the original complaint on the ground that the state-law claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.3Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Nestle Bottled Water Litigation The plaintiffs came back with a consolidated amended complaint in June 2018, asserting fraud, breach of contract, and consumer protection violations under the laws of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.6Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Order Granting and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
On March 28, 2019, Judge Meyer revived most of the case. He found that the state-law claims were not preempted because the states involved had adopted standards “substantively equivalent” to the FDA’s spring water definition. Vermont’s claims were dismissed for lack of an equivalent state standard, and the case moved forward in the other eight states.6Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Order Granting and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Nestlé kept trying to end the case on summary judgment. In August 2020, the court rejected the argument that private citizens could not sue under the state consumer protection statutes, except for one narrow claim under the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In February 2022, Judge Meyer denied almost all of a second summary judgment motion, finding genuine factual disputes over the applicable statute of limitations and whether the company had fraudulently concealed how its water was sourced.3Joseph Saveri Law Firm. Nestle Bottled Water Litigation
Throughout the litigation, Nestlé leaned on a prior class action settlement, Ramsey v. Nestlé Waters North America (2003), arguing that it released the company from claims about its spring water sourcing. Judge Meyer read the release narrowly, finding it applied only to a limited group of facilities operational between 1996 and 2003 and did not cover all plaintiffs or all sources.7GovInfo. Patane v. Nestle Waters North America, USCOURTS-ctd-3_17-cv-01381
The December 2024 Decision
The most consequential ruling to date came on December 30, 2024, when Judge Meyer resolved a third summary judgment motion. The court dismissed all claims for injunctive relief, reasoning that plaintiffs who now knew about the alleged labeling issues could not show the “real, imminent threat” needed to force label changes. Certain individual claims were dismissed as time-barred, and eight plaintiffs who had been members of the earlier Ramsey class were barred from pursuing claims tied to four specific sources: Poland Spring, Clear Spring, Evergreen Spring, and Garden Spring.8Midpage. Patane v. Nestle Waters North America
On the central questions, though, the plaintiffs prevailed. Judge Meyer found genuine issues of material fact about whether Poland Spring water actually qualifies as spring water, pointing to competing expert reports. A former Syracuse University earth sciences professor had submitted findings that the company was extracting pond and surface water and using “man-made” springs, directly contradicting Nestlé’s defense.9WSHU. Judge Declines to Dismiss False Labeling Deceptive Marketing Claims Against Poland Spring The court also rejected Nestlé’s preemption argument and its “safe harbor” defense, which had claimed that state regulators affirmatively approved the water as spring water. Both were sent to a jury. The plaintiffs’ damages methodology, a conjoint and hedonic analysis estimating the price premium consumers paid for the spring water label, also survived.8Midpage. Patane v. Nestle Waters North America
Where the Case Stands
By August 2025, the case had reached class certification. Plaintiffs moved to certify a consumer class, and Nestlé asked Judge Vernon D. Oliver, who appears to have taken over management of the case, to deny the motion. Nestlé called the proposed classes and subclasses “gerrymandered” and said the suit was an attempt to “leverage billions or even trillions of dollars in alleged damages.”10Law360. Patane v. Nestle Waters North America No class has been certified. No trial date has been publicly set.1Connecticut Law Tribune. Billion-Dollar Lawsuit? Big Law Gathers for Nestlé Class Action
Plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of firms. Izard, Kindall & Raabe of West Hartford, Connecticut, and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm serve as co-lead counsel, with additional representation from Susman Godfrey and Pritzker Levine. The complaint seeks at least $5 million, but potential exposure if a class is certified is far larger given the brand’s sales volume.11Yahoo Finance. Meet Connecticut Attorneys Poland Spring
Who the Defendant Is Now
The company on the other side of this lawsuit is no longer Nestlé. Nestlé sold its North American water business to private equity firms One Rock Capital Partners and Metropoulos & Co. in 2021 for $4.3 billion, and the new owners rebranded the operation as BlueTriton Brands.12New York Times. Maine Groundwater Poland Spring Legislation In November 2024, BlueTriton merged with Primo Water Corporation to form Primo Brands Corporation, a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PRMB. Former BlueTriton shareholders hold about 57% of the combined entity.13SEC. Primo Brands Corporation Annual Report Florida-based Primo Brands now oversees Poland Spring and the rest of the legacy BlueTriton portfolio.14Primo Brands. About Primo Brands
A Separate Microplastics Suit
A second, unrelated class action briefly targeted Poland Spring in 2024. Moore v. BlueTriton Brands, Inc., filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleged that Poland Spring water contained dangerous levels of microplastics and synthetic phthalates, making the “100% Natural Spring Water” label deceptive on a different theory. The complaint cited Consumer Reports testing that allegedly found 4,217 total phthalates per bottle serving.15ClassAction.org. Poland Spring Lawsuit Says Water Bottles Contain Harmful Microplastics Phthalates The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that case in October 2024.16PACER Monitor. Moore v. Bluetriton Brands, Inc. It has no bearing on the ongoing Patane spring water case.