What's bad about Liquid Death?

November 11, 2025 •

4 min read

Despite its anti-corporate ethos and environmental claims, Liquid Death faced scrutiny over its 'Armless Palmer' iced tea name, forcing a change to 'Dead Billionaire' after receiving a cease-and-desist letter. However, this incident is just one of several issues prompting consumers to ask what's bad about Liquid Death.

Quick Summary

Liquid Death draws criticism for its high price point, the plastic lining within its "infinitely recyclable" cans, and the presence of added sugars and citric acid in its flavored products. The brand also faces challenges regarding the long-term authenticity of its viral, counter-cultural marketing as it grows into a billion-dollar company.

Key Points

High Price: The premium cost of Liquid Death is primarily for its branding and aluminum packaging, not for a fundamentally superior product.
Misleading Environmental Claims: Despite the "Death to Plastic" campaign, aluminum cans are lined with plastic, and long-distance sourcing and transportation have a carbon footprint.
Health Risks in Flavored Products: Flavored waters and teas contain added sugar and citric acid, which can lead to dental erosion over time.
Branding Authenticity Issues: As a viral, counter-cultural brand that has become a billion-dollar company, Liquid Death risks being seen as inauthentic or a fleeting trend.
Sustainability Contradictions: The brand's focus on aluminum cans distracts from the most sustainable option, which is simply using a reusable water bottle.
Taste and Quality Concerns: Some reports mention odd tastes or potential trace contaminants, though the brand states its water meets health standards.

The Problem with the Premium Price

At its core, Liquid Death is water in an aluminum can, a product that is, in many cases, fundamentally identical to its competitors. Yet, it commands a significantly higher price point. Critics argue that consumers are paying a substantial premium not for a superior product, but for the edgy branding and distinctive packaging. This high cost can be a major deterrent for budget-conscious buyers, raising questions about the brand's value proposition, especially when compared to more affordable alternatives like store-brand bottled water or, most notably, tap water. The price of the unflavored mountain water can be as much as the flavored sparkling variety from other brands, which often include ingredients that add to the cost. This cost is amplified by the brand's expansion into merchandise, from branded clothing to unique items, which further monetizes its aesthetic and loyal fanbase rather than focusing on the core product's value.

Environmental Claims and Contradictions

Liquid Death built its brand around an aggressive "Death to Plastic" message, highlighting the infinite recyclability of aluminum cans. While aluminum recycling is indeed more efficient than plastic, the brand's environmental narrative is far from perfect. Several contradictions and complexities challenge its green image:

Plastic Linings: A fact not widely disclosed in their marketing is that aluminum cans are lined with a plastic coating to prevent the beverage from corroding the metal and to maintain product integrity. This undermines the claim of being a perfect anti-plastic alternative.
Water Sourcing: The mountain water was originally sourced from the Austrian Alps, involving significant long-distance transportation that generates a carbon footprint. While they have expanded to U.S. sources, the initial sourcing and current transportation logistics complicate their environmental claims.
Reusable vs. Single-Use: The most environmentally friendly option remains filtered tap water consumed from a reusable bottle. Promoting a single-use product, even if it's more recyclable, bypasses the most sustainable choice entirely.

Health Concerns in Flavored Products

For those who reach for more than just the plain mountain water, Liquid Death's flavored sparkling waters and iced teas present potential health issues.

Added Sugars: The flavored sparkling waters contain agave nectar, which means they have added sugar, albeit less than traditional soda. The iced teas contain a higher amount of sugar from agave and vitamins. For consumers seeking genuinely healthy, sugar-free hydration, these products do not fit the bill.
Citric Acid and Dental Erosion: Citric acid is used as a flavor enhancer and preservative in the flavored products. High and consistent consumption of acidic beverages, including flavored sparkling water, can contribute to the erosion of tooth enamel.
Undefined "Natural Flavors": Like many beverages, Liquid Death's flavored drinks include the vague term "natural flavors." Some research suggests that certain flavoring compounds and their metabolites may be toxic, though this requires further study.

Marketing and Brand Authenticity Backlash

Liquid Death's core identity is its unconventional, “edgy” marketing that pokes fun at corporate branding and appeals to Gen Z and millennials. However, this strategy carries its own set of criticisms:

The "Try-Hard" Factor: The aggressive, heavy-metal branding can be perceived as gimmicky or inauthentic by some consumers, especially as the brand gains mainstream success. The shock value can wane, leaving the brand vulnerable to becoming a passing fad.
Contradiction of Growth: As a company with a billion-dollar valuation, its rapid corporate expansion stands in contrast to its anti-establishment messaging. This shift risks alienating the core audience that was initially attracted to its smaller, more rebellious persona.
The Arnold Palmer Incident: The brand's attempt at an irreverent name for its iced tea, "Armless Palmer," led to a cease-and-desist letter from the estate of Arnold Palmer, highlighting the fine line between edgy humor and brand controversy.

Is the Hype Sustainable? A Comparison


Feature	Liquid Death	Reusable Bottle (Tap Water)	Standard Bottled Water (Plastic)
Cost	High. Premium for branding.	Low. Minimal cost after initial purchase.	Moderate. Varies by brand.
Environmental Impact	Complex. Cans with plastic lining, transportation footprint.	Best option. Zero single-use waste.	Highest. Significant plastic waste, low recycling rates.
Convenience	High. Ready-to-drink and portable.	Moderate. Requires filling and carrying.	High. Ready-to-drink and portable.
Recyclability	Good. Aluminum is highly recyclable.	Excellent. Infinitely reusable.	Poor. Most plastic bottles are not recycled.
Health (Flavored)	Added sugar, citric acid risk.	Healthy, pure water with no additives.	Can contain microplastics and BPA.

Conclusion: Weighing the Good and the Bad

Liquid Death has successfully disrupted the bottled water market with its unique and humorous branding, appealing to a demographic that felt alienated by traditional beverage marketing. It has also pushed a conversation about plastic pollution, offering a more recyclable alternative to plastic bottles. However, its high price and the complexities of its environmental claims—including the use of plastic linings in its cans—present valid criticisms. For consumers concerned with health, the flavored products introduce added sugars and potentially erosive citric acid. Ultimately, Liquid Death proves that bold marketing can create immense value, but it does not erase the inherent trade-offs involved with any consumer product, particularly one that is simply water in a can. For those prioritizing genuine sustainability and cost-effectiveness, the most sensible choice is often found not on a store shelf, but from a tap. For a deeper dive into the potential pitfalls of viral marketing, review analyst Jane Ostler's commentary on the brand's long-term play in The Guardian.

Frequently Asked Questions

Liquid Death water is sourced from different locations, including an artesian aquifer in Virginia, though it was originally sourced from the Austrian Alps. While it is sourced from a natural location, its initial source is not a constant, which can impact its contents and environmental footprint.

Yes, Liquid Death is considerably more expensive than tap water and many other water brands. The price reflects the company's distinct branding and packaging rather than a fundamental difference in the water itself.

Yes, contrary to the "Death to Plastic" message, the aluminum cans used by Liquid Death have a thin plastic lining on the inside to protect the metal from corrosion. This detail is not widely publicized.

Liquid Death's flavored waters contain some added sugar from agave nectar and citric acid, making them less healthy than plain water. High consumption of the citric acid can also contribute to dental enamel erosion.

Some analysts question the long-term sustainability of Liquid Death's success, suggesting its viral marketing may not be enough to sustain its growth, and its edgy appeal could fade as it becomes more mainstream.

The brand's dark and satirical humor, with slogans like "Murder Your Thirst," has been called controversial and has received backlash, such as the cease-and-desist letter from the Arnold Palmer estate over the "Armless Palmer" name.

While aluminum cans are more easily recycled than plastic bottles, Liquid Death's overall environmental impact is complex. Considerations like transportation costs and the use of a plastic can lining show that it's not a perfectly green solution, especially when compared to reusable water bottles.