A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed class action alleging that consumers paid a premium for juice products advertised as “made simply” with “all natural ingredients,” reasoning that the plaintiff lacked standing in light of flaws in his testing allegations.  See Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., 2025 WL 2773188 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025).

In Lurenz, the plaintiff alleged that certain juice products were falsely labeled as “made simply” or as containing “all natural ingredients” because they allegedly contained PFAS.  The plaintiff’s claims relied entirely on the results of multiple tests showing the presence of PFAS that were allegedly conducted by a third-party laboratory.  In reviewing the sufficiency of those allegations, the court first observed that the plaintiff had not alleged that the tests were of products he actually purchased.­­  The court further concluded that even if the plaintiff had purchased all the samples that were tested, he failed to establish standing because he did not allege how much time had elapsed between when the samples were obtained and when they were tested.  The court also observed that certain of the tests occurred after the plaintiff filed his initial complaint, which meant the plaintiff could not claim to have been misled by those products’ labels.  In addition to these timing issues, the court identified other deficiencies in the testing allegations.  For example, plaintiff failed to plead specific facts regarding the testing methodology, including how many samples tested positive for PFAS and how many samples were collected.

Lurenz joins a growing and helpful trend of decisions in so-called “contaminant” false advertising cases in which courts require specific factual allegations that would make it plausible that the products the plaintiffs actually purchased were contaminated.