Fairlife Animal Cruelty Lawsuit: The $21 Million Settlement and the 2025 Case

Fairlife sells ultra-filtered milk and protein shakes, and it has been owned by The Coca-Cola Company. Its marketing stressed animal care, and its name and logo suggest cows that live a "fair life."

The 2019 lawsuits and MDL 2909

In 2019, after undercover video showed cows and calves being abused at a dairy in fairlife's supply chain, class actions were filed from June to September 2019 claiming that fairlife's promise of humane, "extraordinary" animal care was false and that buyers paid a premium because of it. In October 2019 the cases were consolidated as In re fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2909, lead case No. 1:19-cv-03924, in the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants were fairlife, Coca-Cola, Fair Oaks Farms, Mike and Sue McCloskey, and Select Milk Producers.

The 2025 lawsuit over Arizona suppliers

After Animal Recovery Mission released new undercover footage from Arizona dairies it said supplied fairlife, a new class action, Bhotiwihok v. fairlife, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-01650, was filed that month in the Central District of California against fairlife, Coca-Cola, Select Milk Producers, and the McCloskeys. It claimed the humane care, sustainability, and recyclable bottle claims were false.

The defendants denied the allegations in both cases.

The allegations in both cases went to the heart of fairlife's brand. The company built its premium price on a story of better milk from well-treated cows, and the plaintiffs argued that story was the reason many people paid more. That is why undercover video mattered so much: it did not prove any bottle of milk was unsafe, but it challenged the promise buyers said they relied on. Neither case involved a claim that fairlife products made anyone sick.

On September 28, 2022, Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. granted final approval of the $21 million settlement in MDL 2909 and awarded class counsel $7 million, which the order describes as one-third of the fund. Beyond cash, the settlement included a stipulated injunction enforced through independent audits, with the court appointing Validus Verification Services as auditor and ordering the defendants, not the fund, to pay for the audits. Any leftover money was set to go to the Center for Food Safety and the U.S. Dairy Education & Training Consortium.

In the 2025 case, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II ruled on the motions to dismiss on February 13, 2026. He dismissed several claims because the plaintiffs had not shown they relied on the website statements, and he dismissed Coca-Cola with leave to amend, but he held that the fairlife name and logo together could reasonably lead buyers to believe the cows live a "fair life." The judge had earlier dismissed the McCloskeys (January 26, 2026) and Select Milk Producers. Fairlife answered the amended complaint in March 2026. Then, on May 13, 2026, Judge Wright approved a joint stipulation dismissing the named plaintiffs' individual claims with prejudice and the class claims without prejudice. No public class settlement, claim form, or fund was created, and because the class claims were dismissed without prejudice, other buyers were not barred from suing.

For why a case can end this way, see what happens when a class action ends without a class recovery.

A class settlement releases claims for the period it covers, so a natural question was whether the 2022 fairlife settlement barred the new lawsuit. One defendant tried that argument. Select Milk Producers asked Judge Dow, who oversaw the original MDL, to enforce the 2022 settlement and final judgment against the new claims. On November 14, 2025, Judge Dow denied Select Milk's motion to enforce the settlement, so the 2025 case could proceed on its own terms in Los Angeles.

That ruling makes sense given the dates. The 2022 settlement covered purchases made on or before April 27, 2022, while the 2025 case focused on later purchases and on conduct documented at Arizona dairies in 2024. A release generally cannot cover events that had not happened when the settlement was signed.

The 2025 case moved quickly at first. In October 2025, Judge Wright issued a scheduling order setting a jury trial for May 25, 2027. In January 2026, he dismissed Mike and Sue McCloskey from the case without leave to amend, and in February 2026 he granted Select Milk's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs chose not to amend their complaint further, fairlife answered in March 2026, and the parties then agreed to end the case in May 2026.

For buyers, the result is that purchases after April 27, 2022 have never been part of any fairlife settlement. Because the 2025 class claims were dismissed without prejudice, a new case covering those purchases is still legally possible, though none had been filed that we could find as of September 2026. For more on how releases work, see the rights of a class member.

The 2022 settlement covered people who bought fairlife milk products or Fair Oaks Farms milk products for personal use, not resale, on or before April 27, 2022. Claims had to be filed on the official website, fairlifemilksettlement.com, by December 27, 2022. The opt-out deadline was August 25, 2022.

People who did not file by December 27, 2022 cannot get a payment now. People who did nothing are still bound by the settlement's release for purchases through April 27, 2022, as explained in how settlements bind class members.

The class covered two product groups defined in the settlement: fairlife milk products and Fair Oaks Farms milk products. If you are not sure whether a product you bought was included, the settlement notice listed the covered products; the official website is no longer active, but archived copies of the notice remain available.

The settlement paid 25 percent of the average retail price of the products claimed, capped at $20 without proof and $80 with proof, adjusted up or down depending on how many claims were filed. Attorney fees of $7 million, plus costs and service awards, came out of the $21 million fund before class members were paid. If you filed and never received a payment, contact the settlement administrator listed on the settlement website, since funds from uncashed payments are handled under the settlement terms and the court's orders.

For what happens to money nobody claims, see unclaimed settlement money and what to do if your check never arrived.

The settlement also shows how much of a fund goes to costs. With $7 million awarded in fees from a $21 million fund, plus administration costs and service awards to the 19 named plaintiffs, the remainder was split among claimants within the $20 and $80 caps, adjusted by the number of claims. The audit program was paid separately by the defendants, not from the class fund, and the order provided that no part of the net fund would revert to the defendants. Any money left after distribution was designated to go equally to the Center for Food Safety and the U.S. Dairy Education & Training Consortium, a cy pres distribution.

Animal welfare cases are false advertising cases. Buyers do not sue for the harm to the animals; they sue because they paid for a product marketed as humanely produced. The court asks whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the label or logo, and whether buyers relied on the statements when they purchased.

That reliance question decided much of the 2025 case. Judge Wright dismissed claims based on website statements the plaintiffs had not shown they read, but kept the claim that the fairlife name and cartoon cow logo could suggest humane treatment. In California, claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act have a 3-year statute of limitations, and Unfair Competition Law claims have 4 years. For how these cases differ from injury suits, see types of class action lawsuits.

Courts also look at who made the statement. In the 2025 case, the judge dismissed Coca-Cola because the plaintiffs had not adequately shown how Coca-Cola itself was responsible for the challenged statements, and he dismissed the McCloskeys and Select Milk separately. Owning a brand is not enough by itself to make a parent company liable for its marketing. For buyers, this means the company named on the label is usually the main target in these cases.

The fairlife claim deadline was December 27, 2022, and no new fairlife claim process exists.

1. If you filed a 2022 claim and are missing a payment, contact the administrator through the official settlement website or the contact details in your claim confirmation.
2. Keep receipts for fairlife products you buy now. If a new case is filed after April 27, 2022 purchases, receipts can increase what you recover.
3. Be wary of sites claiming a "new fairlife settlement." As of September 2026, none exists.

If you believe you have a different or larger claim involving a food company's marketing, independent attorneys can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: Kerrygold butter claims and Chobani yogurt lawsuits.

How the free case review works: you answer a few questions about what you bought, when, and what happened. It is free and there is no obligation. If your situation fits cases that independent attorneys are handling, one may reach out. Because no fairlife settlement is open, anyone asking for a fee to file a fairlife claim is not legitimate.

If you want to keep tabs on future developments, the most reliable sources are court dockets and official settlement websites, not social media posts. A genuine class settlement will always name the case, the court, and a claim deadline, and it will never ask you to pay to file.