The Spindrift lawsuit was a proposed class action filed in January 2023 that accused the sparkling water brand of misleading consumers by marketing its drinks as containing only sparkling water and “real squeezed fruit” while they also contained manufactured citric acid. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case two months later, in March 2023, without any settlement, class certification, or court ruling on whether Spindrift’s labels were actually deceptive.1ClassAction.org. Pantoni v. Spindrift Beverage Company, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The case, Pantoni v. Spindrift Beverage Company, Inc., was filed on January 3, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Named plaintiff Madeline Pantoni, represented by the Clarkson Law Firm, brought five causes of action: violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.2ClassAction.org. Pantoni et al v. Spindrift Beverage Co Inc, Complaint
The complaint centered on one ingredient: citric acid. It described commercially produced citric acid as a “synthetically manufactured artificial flavoring agent and preservative,” pointing out that more than 90 percent of it is produced by fermenting the black mold Aspergillus niger rather than being extracted from citrus fruit.3ClassAction.org. Class Action: Spindrift Beverages Falsely Advertised as Only Containing Two Ingredients According to Pantoni, that ingredient contradicted Spindrift’s core marketing message.
The labels called out in the complaint read “SPARKLING WATER & REAL SQUEEZED FRUIT yup, that’s it” on the sparkling water line and “spiked sparkling water. real squeezed [fruit]. YUP THAT’S IT” on the spiked line. The suit alleged that Spindrift reinforced the two-ingredient image through its website, blog posts, and social media to justify premium pricing.4Top Class Actions. Spindrift Class Action Claims Products Falsely Advertised as Only Containing Two Ingredients
Ten products were named. The sparkling waters: Blood Orange Tangerine, Cucumber, Orange Mango, and Pineapple. The spiked flavors: Blood Orange Tangerine, Grapefruit, Lemon, Mango, Passion Orange Guava, and Pineapple.4Top Class Actions. Spindrift Class Action Claims Products Falsely Advertised as Only Containing Two Ingredients
How the Case Ended
The lawsuit never reached a substantive phase. Spindrift had not filed an answer or any dispositive motion when, on March 6, 2023, Pantoni’s attorneys filed a one-page notice voluntarily dismissing the entire action without prejudice. The filing gave no reason.1ClassAction.org. Pantoni v. Spindrift Beverage Company, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Because the defendant had not yet answered, federal rules allowed the plaintiff to dismiss without court approval.
Nothing was decided. No settlement was paid. No class was certified. No judge assessed whether Spindrift’s “yup, that’s it” language was misleading. The “without prejudice” designation left the plaintiff technically free to refile, but no refiled version has appeared in public records.5PACER Monitor. Pantoni v Spindrift Beverage Company, Inc
Why Citric Acid Keeps Showing Up in These Cases
The legal theory in the Pantoni complaint sits inside an unresolved regulatory question. Federal regulations describe citric acid as a “naturally occurring constituent of plant and animal tissues” and list fermentation using Aspergillus niger as an accepted production method. The FDA classifies it as Generally Recognized as Safe.6eCFR. 21 CFR 184.1033 – Citric Acid What the rules do not settle is whether fermentation-derived citric acid can be described as “natural” on a consumer label, or whether marketing that implies fruit-only ingredients is misleading when the additive is present.
That gap has produced a stream of similar suits. In Delvalle v. Coca-Cola Co. (S.D.N.Y. 2025), a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss, finding that whether industrially manufactured citric acid qualifies as “unnatural” remained an open factual question.7Food Dive. False Advertising Lawsuits Are Ramping Up in Food and Beverage The Spindrift case ended too early for any court to weigh in one way or the other.
What Changed at Spindrift After the Lawsuit
Spindrift did not publicly discuss the litigation in detail, but its packaging changed. The “yup, that’s it” line was dropped from labels.8Chowhound. Spindrift Soda Controversy The company rolled out a broader packaging refresh that it described as offering greater “clarity and accuracy” about fruit ingredients, specifying items such as “lime extract (from limes)” alongside juice and puree. Spindrift said the refresh involved no change to any recipe or formula.9Spindrift. The Same Spindrift You Love, Now With Refreshed Packaging
Citric acid still appears on current ingredient lists for several flavors, including Blood Orange Tangerine, Island Punch, Pineapple, Mango Orange, and Peach Strawberry.10Spindrift. What’s Inside
Similar Suits Against Sparkling Water Brands
Spindrift is one of several sparkling water brands to face this type of claim. A suit against Poland Spring alleged that Raspberry Lime Sparkling Water was misleadingly marketed as containing natural fruit when it used a laboratory-made flavor compound. A federal judge dismissed that case in July 2022, holding that “With a Twist of Raspberry Lime” described a flavor profile rather than promising fruit-derived flavoring.11Top Class Actions. Nestle Poland Spring Raspberry Lime Sparkling Water Class Action Lawsuit Kroger and Whole Foods have faced related suits over synthetic malic acid and fruit-content claims in their store-brand sparkling waters.7Food Dive. False Advertising Lawsuits Are Ramping Up in Food and Beverage
California draws most of this litigation because plaintiffs can pair claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Many cases are filed by a small group of plaintiff firms and dismissed early for failure to state a viable claim.7Food Dive. False Advertising Lawsuits Are Ramping Up in Food and Beverage The Spindrift case did not get that far, which is why buyers of the named products received no notice, no claim form, and no payment: there was nothing to distribute.