The Vitaminwater lawsuit was a consumer class action accusing Coca-Cola of marketing a sugar-heavy drink as if it were a health product, and it ended in two injunctive settlements — one in 2015 covering five states and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and a broader one in 2016 covering New York and California — that forced label changes and banned specific health claims but paid consumers nothing.1CSPI. Coca-Cola Vitaminwater2Truth in Advertising. Volz v. Coca-Cola Final Approval Order
What the Plaintiffs Said Coca-Cola Did Wrong
The Center for Science in the Public Interest and a group of consumers filed the original complaint in October 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a case titled Ackerman v. The Coca-Cola Company, case number 1:09-cv-00395.1CSPI. Coca-Cola Vitaminwater3GovInfo. Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Company, CV-09-0395 The case consolidated five earlier class actions.4ResearchGate. False Advertising on Enhanced Water Labels
The core allegation was simple. Each bottle of Vitaminwater contained 33 grams of sugar, roughly the same as a can of Coke, while the branding suggested the drink was little more than vitamins mixed into water. CSPI argued the sugar “do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles.”5Washington State Attorney General. Coke Sued Over Vitaminwater Health Claims
The complaint pointed to specific marketing. Taglines like “vitamins + water = all you need” and “vitamins + water = what’s in your hand” were said to create the impression of fortified water.1CSPI. Coca-Cola Vitaminwater One line promised that “this combination of zinc and fortifying vitamins can … keep you healthy as a horse.”6Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Settlement Results in Label Changes Flavor names — “defense,” “rescue,” “energy,” “endurance” — were argued to function as implicit health claims.5Washington State Attorney General. Coke Sued Over Vitaminwater Health Claims The “Rescue” flavor was described as “specially formulated to support optimal metabolic function with antioxidants that may reduce the risk of chronic diseases,” and one ad for another flavor announced “flu shots are so last year” alongside “more vitamin C, more immunity.”4ResearchGate. False Advertising on Enhanced Water Labels The entire line was branded as a “nutrient enhanced water beverage.”7Truth in Advertising. Marketing of Vitaminwater
How Coca-Cola Defended Itself
Coca-Cola moved to dismiss. Its arguments: state-law claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act; slogans like “healthy as a horse” were puffery no reasonable consumer would take literally; and the FDA-mandated nutrition facts panel on the back of the bottle told anyone who looked exactly how much sugar was inside.8FKKS. Class Action False Advertising Lawsuit Against Vitaminwater Will Go Forward
The company’s most-quoted line was blunter still: “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.”9MinnPost. Coca-Cola’s Argument in Vitaminwater Lawsuit
On July 21, 2010, Judge John Gleeson issued a 55-page opinion denying the bulk of the motion.10CBS News. Coke’s Motion to Drop Vitaminwater Suit Denied9MinnPost. Coca-Cola’s Argument in Vitaminwater Lawsuit On preemption, he held the claims involved alleged violations of FDA rules rather than conflicts with them. On the nutrition panel, he wrote that small-print information on the back did not “cure” misleading front-of-package claims, especially because sugar content was listed per serving rather than per bottle.8FKKS. Class Action False Advertising Lawsuit Against Vitaminwater Will Go Forward
In July 2013, a magistrate judge recommended certifying statewide classes in New York and California for injunctive relief, but not for monetary damages.11Bloomberg Law. Classes Alleging Vitaminwater Deceit Win Certification for Injunctive Relief That distinction shaped both settlements: the remedies were about changing behavior, not writing checks.
The 2015 Ohio Settlement
A parallel wave of suits filed in late 2010 in Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, and the U.S. Virgin Islands was consolidated as Volz et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 1:10-cv-00879, before Judge Michael R. Barrett in the Southern District of Ohio.12Food Navigator-USA. Coca-Cola to Settle Some Vitaminwater Deceptive Advertising Lawsuits It settled first. The agreement, announced in August 2014 and granted final approval on March 30, 2015, covered purchasers from January 1, 2003 through the notice date and certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2).2Truth in Advertising. Volz v. Coca-Cola Final Approval Order
Coca-Cola agreed to stop using “vitamins + water = what’s in your hand” and “vitamins + water = all you need,” and to list calories on the front label. Critics pointed out the company had already made those changes before the deal was finalized. Class members received nothing. Class counsel received $1.2 million in fees. An appeal filed in 2015 was dismissed with prejudice that June by agreement of the parties, with the dismissal terms kept confidential.13Truth in Advertising. Vitaminwater’s Health Claims
Truth in Advertising objected that the deal “awards no money to the consumers in the class” while attorneys “pocket the money,” and that Coca-Cola was still permitted to use the name “vitaminwater” and the phrase “nutrient enhanced water beverage.”14Truth in Advertising. TINA.org Objects to Unhealthy Vitaminwater Settlement
The 2016 New York and California Settlement
The original CSPI case settled on broader terms. On April 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy granted final approval, overruling two objections he found “without merit,” in a deal covering New York and California purchasers.15CSPI. Vitaminwater Settlement Approved by Court16Supply Side SJ. Judge Approves Settlement of Coca-Cola Vitaminwater Lawsuit
Coca-Cola was barred for ten years from making ten specific health claims, including that the drinks could reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, produce feelings of relaxation, or foster a “healthy state of physical and mental being.” The company also had to add “with sweeteners” in two locations on labels near the brand name, with 24 months to implement the change and an obligation to keep the language for three years.17Truth in Advertising. Proposed Vitaminwater Settlement Leaves Sour Aftertaste Calorie counts had to appear more prominently on the front of packaging.18Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Label to Say ‘With Sweeteners’
Coca-Cola agreed to pay up to $2.7 million toward the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses.18Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Label to Say ‘With Sweeteners’
What Consumers Actually Got — and Didn’t
Neither settlement paid money to consumers. Neither required Coca-Cola to reformulate Vitaminwater or reduce its sugar content. And the New York settlement did not stop the company from rewording the prohibited claims into similar marketing language.17Truth in Advertising. Proposed Vitaminwater Settlement Leaves Sour Aftertaste18Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Label to Say ‘With Sweeteners’
What class members got was labeling: front-of-bottle calorie disclosure, the phrase “with sweeteners” near the brand name in New York and California, and a ten-year prohibition on the ten enumerated health claims. What they did not get was compensation, a smaller sugar load, or the removal of the “vitaminwater” name itself.
Regulatory Pressure Alongside the Lawsuit
The class actions were not the only pressure on Coca-Cola’s marketing. In February 2011, the National Consumers League asked the Federal Trade Commission to halt the “nutrient enhanced water beverage” label and the “vitamins + water = all you need” slogan and to require corrective advertising.19National Consumers League. Vitaminwater Making Bold Claims The FTC opened an investigation and closed it in January 2012 without formal action, citing Coca-Cola’s discontinuation of the ads at issue and revisions to other claims.20National Consumers League. NCL Disappointed in FTC Conclusion of Investigation of Misleading Marketing Claims for Vitaminwater
In the United Kingdom, the Advertising Standards Authority banned a Vitaminwater poster on January 19, 2011, after three consumers complained that calling the product “nutritious” was misleading. The ASA noted that a 500ml bottle contained about 23 grams of sugar, roughly four or five teaspoons, and said consumers “would not expect” a drink with about a quarter of their daily guideline sugar amount to be described that way.21BBC. Vitamin Water Ad Banned by ASA
Judge Gleeson’s 2010 ruling carried a signal for the wider food and beverage industry: a compliant nutrition facts panel on the back of a package does not excuse misleading claims on the front. That principle, more than any dollar figure, was the substantive outcome of the Vitaminwater litigation.