7 Settlements Hit Me with Your Best Shot (of 100% Agave Tequila) Pusateri v. Diageo North America Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02482 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025). A proposed class action filed in the Eastern District of New York alleges that the alcohol giant defendant has been serving up a misleading cocktail by advertising its tequila products as“100% agave,”when in fact the spirits are allegedly watered down with significant amounts of cane or other types of alcohol rather than pure tequila. The plaintiffs— including a mixologist, a restaurant, and a consumer—claim they paid top-shelf prices for what they thought was pure tequila, only to discover they’d been left with a watereddown experience. The complaint alleges that the defendant’s labeling left consumers with a hangover of disappointment because tests revealed the products were not the straight up 100% blue Weber agave tequila promised, but rather a blend with other spirits. The plaintiffs argue they wouldn’t have shelled out the extra cash for these “premium” pours if they’d known the truth. The suit highlights that tequila’s production process is no walk in the bar—blue Weber agave takes years to mature. The plaintiffs allege that both U.S. and Mexican regulations require strict limits on non-agave ingredients in tequila and that the defendant’s products don’t make the legal proof. The class action seeks to distill justice for consumers in New York and New Jersey, asking the court to pour out damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and to bar the defendant’s allegedly deceptive practices. The Protein Pile-On Shahinian v. IQBAR Inc., No. 8:25-cv-01112 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2025). Blackett v. Vital Amine Inc., No. 2:25-cv-05217 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2025). Ruchman v. Alpha Prime Supps LLC, No. 5:25-cv-01442 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2025). Plascencia v. InScience Solutions LLC, No. 2:25-cv-05533 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2025). Desert hikers are not the only ones claiming to have seen mirages in the Central District of California. In a series of lawsuits filed in rapid succession, numerous plaintiffs contend they saw glistening promises of protein on product labels, only to come up dry. Their disappointment flowed from at least one of three grievances related to front-label protein claims—quality, quantity, and omission. They bring a combination of California consumer protection law claims, breach of warranty claims, and claims for unjust enrichment. Those challenging protein quality cry “PDCAAS,” which readers know by now is not a culinary incantation, but a “Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score.” The greater the quality of protein, the higher the PDCAAS. Given the front-label protein claims, the plaintiffs contend PDCAAS must be—but was not—baked into the percentage daily value of protein on the nutrition panel, obscuring the actual amount of bioavailable protein. Those serving up challenges to protein quantity do not similarly include a side of alphabet soup. They simply contend that they tested the products they purchased and found lower amounts of protein than advertised. And as for one plaintiff’s lawsuit, the complaint
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Njk5MDg5