By Energy drink brands occupy a uniquely contested space in consumer marketing. They must appeal to health conscious buyers while making bold performance claims that attract regulatory scrutiny and, in some cases, legal challenges. The celsius lawsuit has become one of the more closely followed examples of how beverage companies are held accountable for what they put on their labels and in their advertising.
Celsius Holdings, the maker of Celsius Live Fit energy drinks, has faced multiple rounds of litigation in US federal courts involving product labeling and marketing representations. The litigation attracted public attention not because of sensational health injury claims, but because of a more precise legal question: when a company tells consumers its product contains no preservatives, does the presence of citric acid make that claim false?
This article examines what the celsius lawsuit involved, what court records confirmed, how the litigation has evolved, and what practical lessons consumers can take from this ongoing chapter in food and beverage litigation.
Table of Contents
Understanding the Celsius Lawsuit
The celsius lawsuit does not refer to a single case. It encompasses a series of related consumer protection and product labeling disputes filed against Celsius Holdings, Inc. over several years. The most prominent of these cases was resolved through a court approved class action settlement in 2023. Additional litigation has continued into 2024 and beyond, involving different legal theories and different aspects of how Celsius markets its products.
Understanding the distinction between these separate legal proceedings is essential for any consumer trying to assess what the celsius lawsuit means for their rights or for the brand’s practices. Each case involves different allegations, different plaintiffs, and different legal outcomes.
Why Has the Celsius Lawsuit Attracted Public Attention?
The celsius lawsuit drew consumer interest for several interconnected reasons. First, Celsius is not a niche product. The brand has grown into one of the most visible names in the US energy drink market, reaching over $1.36 billion in revenue in 2024 and holding approximately a ten percent share of the US energy drink category, with distribution through PepsiCo. When a brand of that scale faces litigation, a large segment of consumers has a direct personal connection to the product.
Second, the core allegation in the original lawsuit was accessible and concrete. Consumers did not need legal training to understand the claim that a product labeled “no preservatives” might actually contain an ingredient that functions as one. That clarity made the litigation easy to follow and easy to share across consumer forums and social media.
Third, the celsius lawsuit fits into a broader pattern of beverage industry lawsuits in which courts have been asked to define the line between permissible marketing and actionable consumer deception. The case raised questions that matter well beyond Celsius itself, about how ingredient terms are used on labels, what health related marketing claims are legally permissible, and when the gap between advertising language and product reality crosses a legal threshold.
Background on Celsius Energy Drinks
Product Positioning and Marketing
Celsius entered the US market as a fitness and performance beverage, positioning itself as a healthier alternative to conventional energy drinks. The brand’s marketing emphasized metabolism acceleration, fat burning, and calorie burning as effects of its proprietary MetaPlus blend. These claims were central to how the product differentiated itself in a competitive category.
This positioning targeted health conscious consumers who were actively seeking beverages that aligned with fitness goals. Marketing language that connected the drink to physical performance and natural wellness created strong consumer expectations, and it is precisely those expectations that later became legally significant.
Ingredients and Labeling
Celsius products contain a blend of ingredients including caffeine, green tea extract, ginger, vitamins, and in some formulations, citric acid. The brand prominently labeled many of its products as containing “no preservatives,” a claim that appeared on packaging, cans, and marketing materials.
The inclusion of citric acid alongside that claim became the central issue in the primary celsius lawsuit. According to publicly available court records, plaintiffs argued that citric acid is classified as a preservative by the FDA, making the “no preservatives” label claim false and misleading. Celsius disputed this interpretation, arguing that citric acid was used in its formulations for flavoring purposes, not as a preservative.
Consumer Expectations
The legal significance of product labeling lies largely in how a reasonable consumer interprets it. When a health focused brand explicitly states that its product contains “no preservatives,” consumers who prioritize clean ingredient profiles are likely to rely on that claim when making purchasing decisions. Court filings in the celsius lawsuit indicated that plaintiffs paid a price premium for Celsius products based at least in part on the belief that those products were free from preservatives.
Regulatory Oversight
Food and beverage labeling in the United States is governed by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDA requires that ingredient labeling be truthful and not misleading. The FTC separately oversees advertising claims under its prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Together, these regulatory frameworks establish the legal baseline against which product marketing claims are measured in consumer protection litigation.
What Are the Main Legal Allegations?
False Advertising Claims
The foundational allegation in the original celsius lawsuit was that Celsius Holdings made a false advertising claim by labeling its products as containing “no preservatives” while including citric acid, which plaintiffs and their experts argued functions as a preservative under FDA definitions. The complaint was filed on November 23, 2021, by plaintiffs Amit Hezi, Joseph Nina, and Daniel Prescod in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs alleged violations of the New York General Business Law, which prohibits deceptive business practices and false advertising. Court filings indicate that the plaintiffs argued the defendant’s intent in using citric acid, whether for flavoring or preservation, was legally irrelevant. What mattered, they argued, was the functional role the ingredient played in the product.
Product Labeling Issues
A separate class action case, Starks v. Celsius Holdings, filed in January 2024, introduced a different category of product labeling concern. According to publicly available court records, the complaint alleged that Celsius Live Fit energy drinks are misbranded under federal law because the marketing claims the company makes about metabolism acceleration, fat burning, and calorie burning legally classify the product as a drug, a category that requires FDA approval the company had not obtained.
This case reflects a more complex legal theory but addresses the same underlying tension: whether the health and performance claims Celsius makes on its packaging and in advertising cross a regulatory line that the company has not satisfied.
Consumer Protection Arguments
Both the original preservative case and the 2024 misbranding case advanced consumer protection arguments grounded in the premise that consumers paid more for Celsius products based on representations that were either false or legally impermissible. Consumer protection statutes in New York, California, and other states provide legal mechanisms for class members to recover when they can show that a materially deceptive marketing claim influenced their purchasing decisions.
Company Response
Celsius Holdings denied the allegations in the original celsius lawsuit and maintained that citric acid was used in its products for flavoring, not as a preservative. The company chose to settle the litigation rather than proceed to trial, which it described as a business decision to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. As a condition of the settlement, Celsius agreed to remove the “no preservatives” claim from its products’ marketing materials, packaging, and cans. The company admitted no wrongdoing.
What Do Public Court Records Show?
According to publicly available court records, the original Celsius preservative class action, Hezi et al. v. Celsius Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09892, reached a $7.8 million settlement that received final approval from a federal judge in the Southern District of New York on April 5, 2023. The settlement fund was established for the benefit of consumers who purchased eligible Celsius products between January 1, 2015, and November 23, 2022.
The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and dismissed the case with prejudice on the terms set forth in the settlement agreement. Approximately 60,000 claimants received payments greater than $23, and around 100,000 received more than $14. Individual payouts ranged from a modest sum without proof of purchase to higher amounts with receipt documentation. The claims period for this settlement is now closed and no new claims are being accepted under this specific case.
A separate investor securities class action alleging that Celsius and certain executives misrepresented inventory levels and demand figures in connection with its PepsiCo distribution deal was dismissed by a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2026. In 2025, a product recall was issued after High Noon vodka seltzer was mistakenly packaged in Celsius-labeled cans and shipped to retailers in several states. No formal consumer lawsuit had been filed in connection with the recall as of the most recent publicly available reporting.
How Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Work
Filing a Class Action
A class action lawsuit is initiated when one or more named plaintiffs file a complaint alleging that a company’s conduct harmed a large group of similarly situated consumers. The named plaintiffs represent the interests of the broader class throughout the litigation. In the celsius lawsuit, named plaintiffs alleged harm on behalf of all US consumers who purchased the relevant Celsius products during the defined class period.
Court Approval Process
Before a case can proceed as a class action, a court must certify the class, finding that common legal and factual questions predominate and that a class action is the appropriate vehicle for resolving the dispute. If the parties reach a proposed settlement, the court must separately evaluate whether the settlement terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members before granting final approval.
Settlement Possibilities
Settlements in consumer class actions are negotiated agreements between the parties that resolve the litigation without a trial verdict. They typically include a monetary fund from which class members can file claims, injunctive relief requiring the company to change practices, and payment of attorneys’ fees. A settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by the defendant, and courts independently evaluate whether the terms adequately protect class members’ interests before granting approval.
Consumer Rights
Consumers who are potential class members have the right to receive notice of a proposed settlement, review its terms, object if they believe the terms are inadequate, or opt out if they prefer to pursue individual legal claims. Class members who do not opt out and who submit timely claim forms are bound by the settlement and its release of claims against the defendant.
What Consumers Can Learn From the Celsius Lawsuit
The celsius lawsuit illustrates several important principles that apply to how consumers should evaluate the products they buy and the marketing claims they encounter.
Specific label claims carry legal weight. When a company places a precise factual statement on a product, such as “no preservatives,” it is making a representation that consumers can and do rely on. Courts treat those representations seriously, and companies face real legal exposure when those statements are challenged as inaccurate.
Health and performance claims in food and beverage marketing exist in a complex regulatory environment. Claims that imply a product can alter body chemistry, accelerate metabolism, or produce weight loss results attract FDA scrutiny because they may cross the regulatory boundary between a food product and a drug. Consumers who see such claims on energy drink packaging should understand that those claims may be contested and are not necessarily validated by regulatory approval.
Settlements are not admissions. The fact that Celsius settled the preservative case and agreed to remove the “no preservatives” claim from its products does not mean a court found that the company intentionally deceived consumers. Settlement decisions frequently reflect litigation economics rather than conclusions about culpability. Consumers should evaluate both the facts and the outcome when assessing what class action results actually mean.
How to Evaluate Product Marketing Claims
Consumers who want to make more informed decisions about energy drink marketing claims and food and beverage products generally can take practical steps to evaluate what they are actually purchasing.
Read the full ingredient list rather than relying on front-of-package statements. Front-of-package claims like “no preservatives,” “all natural,” or “no artificial ingredients” are marketing language, not regulatory designations. The ingredient list on the back of a product, governed by FDA labeling requirements, provides a more accurate picture of what the product contains.
Research what ingredient names mean. Citric acid, carrageenan, and other common food additives appear on ingredient lists using scientific names that may not immediately convey their function. Free resources from the FDA and consumer organizations can help consumers understand what common food ingredients do and whether they align with the buyer’s dietary preferences.
Apply skepticism to performance claims. Claims about metabolism, fat burning, energy levels, and similar physiological effects in food and beverage marketing are not pre-approved by the FDA or FTC before they appear on products. If a claim sounds like it belongs on a pharmaceutical label, it is worth investigating whether it is supported by independent scientific evidence or is primarily a marketing assertion.
Key Takeaways for Readers
The celsius lawsuit is a meaningful case study in how US consumer protection law responds to product labeling and marketing practices in the food and beverage industry. The most important points for consumers to carry forward are as follows.
The original celsius lawsuit, Hezi et al. v. Celsius Holdings, resulted in a court approved $7.8 million settlement in April 2023 over the “no preservatives” claim. That claims period is now closed. Celsius agreed to remove the challenged claim from its products as a condition of the settlement.
Additional litigation involving Celsius continues. The Starks v. Celsius Holdings case, filed in January 2024, alleges that certain marketing claims about metabolism and fat burning legally classify the product as a drug requiring FDA approval. That case was still in litigation as of the most recent publicly available reporting, and developments may continue to evolve.
Allegations in a lawsuit are not proof of wrongdoing. Courts apply rigorous standards before finding liability, and the resolution of consumer class action litigation through settlement does not establish that a company acted unlawfully.
Consumers who want to follow developments in the celsius lawsuit and related energy drink litigation should monitor court records through PACER, review announcements from the FDA and FTC, and consult qualified legal counsel if they believe they have a personal claim arising from a product they purchased.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Celsius lawsuit about?
The celsius lawsuit refers to multiple consumer protection legal proceedings against Celsius Holdings, Inc. involving allegations about product labeling and marketing practices. The original and most prominent case alleged that Celsius falsely labeled its drinks as containing “no preservatives” while including citric acid, which plaintiffs argued functions as a preservative. A separate lawsuit filed in 2024 alleges that certain health and performance marketing claims make Celsius Live Fit drinks misbranded drugs under federal law.
Why was Celsius sued?
Celsius was sued because plaintiffs alleged that the company’s “no preservatives” labeling claim was false and misleading. According to court filings, the presence of citric acid in Celsius products contradicted the company’s label representations, and plaintiffs argued that health conscious consumers paid a price premium based on that inaccurate claim. Celsius disputed the allegations and denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle the litigation.
Has the Celsius lawsuit been settled?
The original celsius lawsuit over preservative labeling, Hezi et al. v. Celsius Holdings, reached a $7.8 million settlement that received final court approval on April 5, 2023, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims period for that settlement is now closed. Additional litigation, including the 2024 Starks v. Celsius Holdings misbranding case, remains ongoing as of the most recent publicly available reporting.
Is Celsius still being sold?
Yes. Celsius energy drinks continue to be sold in the United States. The company resolved the original preservative labeling lawsuit through settlement and removed the “no preservatives” claim from its products as a condition of that settlement. Ongoing litigation involving other aspects of the brand’s marketing does not affect the continued sale of the product.
What are class action lawsuits?
A class action lawsuit is a legal proceeding in which one or more named plaintiffs sue on behalf of a larger group of consumers who have allegedly suffered similar harm from the same conduct. Class actions allow consumers with relatively small individual claims to pursue them collectively, making litigation economically viable and creating accountability for widespread corporate conduct. A court must certify the class before the case proceeds, and any settlement must receive judicial approval as fair and adequate for class members.
Where can consumers verify lawsuit information?
Consumers can verify information about the celsius lawsuit and related proceedings through federal court records accessible via PACER at pacer.uscourts.gov, the FDA’s official website at fda.gov for regulatory guidance and product recall information, the FTC’s website at ftc.gov for advertising and labeling regulatory standards, and established legal reporting sources that track class action developments. Consumers should be cautious about relying on third party websites or social media posts as authoritative sources of case status information.