The complaint, filed in May 2025, targets LMNT over the labeling and marketing of its electrolyte drink mixes. The plaintiffs alleged that LMNT’s products, which are marketed as being formulated with “All Natural Ingredients”, “No Artificial Ingredients” and “Paleo-Keto Friendly” actually contain maltodextrin, which the complaint describes as “a highly processed synthetic ingredient” concealed under “natural flavors.”
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that “reasonable consumers…believed that the Products do not contain artificial fillers” and that they paid premium prices based on LMNT’s positioning as “natural” and “keto-friendly.”
Why the case matters for the supplement industry
The lawsuit has raised questions about how far brands can go in making “clean label” claims and highlights the increasing litigation risk around terms like “natural,” “minimally processed” and “keto-friendly.”
Cases of this nature often turn on whether courts see the statements as misleading or as non-actionable marketing, Dana Klinges, partner at Duane Morris and leader of the firm’s Trial Practice Group’s Class Action Working Group, told NutraIngredients.
“Sometimes the court looks at a statement and determines right away that it is mere ‘puffery’ that no reasonable consumer would rely on or that the statement is clear enough that consumers would not be misled or confused,” Klinges said. She added that judges may also look closely at “the entirety of a label or advertisement, the location of a particular statement on a label, the size of the font used and contrasts in color.”
For supplement makers, the challenge is that what resonates with consumers in marketing, such as promises of “No Dodgy Ingredients”, which LMNT has used in its advertising, can also create legal risk. According to Klinges, plaintiffs will likely try to show that these representations “were very important to them in making purchasing decisions,” while companies will push back by arguing that consumer reliance cannot be proven on a broad, classwide basis.
Class action risks
The plaintiffs are seeking certification of multiple classes, initially limited to California and Arkansas, but later expanded to include Montana, where LMNT lists its principal office, and a nationwide class. Klinges noted that “it is generally difficult for plaintiffs to get a nationwide class certified for state common law or statutory claims,” since consumer protection laws differ across states.
Even so, she explained, “motion practice on class certification is a long way off, and will follow what will likely be a lengthy period for discovery.”
For the industry, her takeaway is that even if nationwide classes are unlikely to succeed, companies still face exposure under multiple state consumer protection laws, and defending these cases can be costly.
Potential remedies
The plaintiffs are seeking damages, restitution and equitable relief, including recovery of the premium price they claim consumers paid.
“Many states have statutory schemes that permit plaintiffs to recover ‘actual damages’—here, probably the difference between the allegedly premium price paid and the value that plaintiffs contend they actually received—or statutory damages, such as a set dollar figure for each transaction," Klinges said.
She added that litigation costs often drive resolution: “In consumer class actions like this, it is very common for cases to be settled on an individual, confidential basis,” though classwide settlements, while more expensive, “achieve a full resolution with respect to all class members who do not opt out.”
Industry implications
The LMNT case highlights the growing scrutiny of marketing claims in the food and supplement industry. To minimize risk, Klinges recommended that manufacturers, co-packers and suppliers conduct regular audits of both labels and advertising materials.
“Many cases have challenged images of farms, fruits or vegetables as suggesting that a product is ‘healthy’ or ‘natural’ or that it contains certain amounts of the foods depicted,” she said, noting that “what might have been acceptable five years ago may not be acceptable today.”
NutraIngredients reached out to LMNT, Inc. for comment on the pending litigation but did not receive a response prior to publication.
