The Core Allegations Against KeVita and PepsiCo
The central claim of the 2017 class-action lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Emma Brenner, was that KeVita and PepsiCo misled consumers into purchasing a pasteurized product under the false assumption that it contained live probiotics resulting from a natural fermentation process. Kombucha is traditionally known as a 'raw' beverage, where a symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast (SCOBY) ferments sweetened tea to produce beneficial probiotics. The lawsuit detailed several deceptive practices allegedly used by the company to conceal that its Master Brew Kombucha was not raw.
The Pasteurization Deception
- Destruction of Probiotics: Pasteurization is a heating process used to kill potentially harmful bacteria and extend a product's shelf life. For kombucha, however, this process also destroys the beneficial live probiotic cultures that are the primary health draw for many consumers. The lawsuit argued that marketing a pasteurized product with live probiotic claims was inherently misleading.
- Concealment of Pasteurization: Plaintiffs alleged that KeVita actively concealed its pasteurization process from consumers. While the company began pasteurizing its Master Brew line around 2011, it continued to market the drinks with imagery and messaging that suggested small-batch authenticity and raw, fermented qualities.
False and Misleading Advertising
The complaint also pointed to specific advertising and retail practices that reinforced the deceptive claims:
- Refrigerated Placement: The lawsuit highlighted that KeVita placed its pasteurized kombucha in refrigerated sections next to unpasteurized brands. This practice was said to further mislead consumers into believing the KeVita product required refrigeration to maintain live cultures, just like its competitors.
- 'Handcrafted' and 'Live' Claims: The continued use of terms like “handcrafted” and “live probiotics” on labels and in marketing materials was central to the false advertising claims. This marketing language exploited consumer demand for natural, fermented health beverages, even when the product's processing method contradicted those implied benefits.
The 2020 Class Action Settlement
As a result of the litigation, a settlement was reached in 2020. Class members were notified of their potential eligibility to receive compensation from the settlement. The settlement provided a resolution for consumers who purchased KeVita Master Brew Kombucha prior to September 16, 2020, and believed they were receiving a raw, unpasteurized product with live probiotics. While not an admission of wrongdoing, the settlement provided financial relief to affected consumers and forced greater transparency.
The Impact on the Kombucha Industry
The KeVita lawsuit was not an isolated incident and reflects broader issues within the kombucha market regarding misleading health claims. Several other kombucha brands have faced similar legal scrutiny over false advertising, alcohol content, and probiotic count issues. The legal challenges have pushed for greater clarity and stricter labeling standards.
KeVita vs. Consumer Expectations: A Comparison
| Aspect | KeVita's Master Brew (Post-2011) | Raw, Traditional Kombucha (Consumer Expectation) |
|---|---|---|
| Probiotic Source | Added after pasteurization, if any | Result of natural fermentation |
| Processing | Pasteurization used | Unpasteurized and raw |
| Live Culture Content | Inconsistent or destroyed | Contains live, beneficial cultures |
| Retail Placement | Often in refrigerated sections | Requires refrigeration to maintain live cultures |
| Advertising | Used terms like 'live' and 'handcrafted' | Emphasizes 'raw' and 'live' fermentation |
Conclusion: Consumer Awareness and Market Transparency
The KeVita kombucha lawsuit serves as a significant case study in consumer protection and food and beverage advertising. It underscores the importance of clear, accurate product labeling, particularly in the health and wellness market where consumers rely on specific claims to make informed decisions. The eventual settlement and the publicity surrounding the case pushed for greater industry transparency and accountability, holding major corporations like PepsiCo responsible for potentially deceptive marketing practices. The litigation reflects a growing trend of consumers challenging health-based advertising, signaling that brands must be vigilant in ensuring their products align with their marketing messages. For continued information on consumer class actions, a resource like Truth in Advertising provides valuable oversight: TINA.org.
