LMNT and Liquid I.V. Lawsuits: Electrolyte Drink Natural and Sugar-Free Claims

Vaughn v. Drink LMNT, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00052, was filed in May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division. The plaintiffs, from Arkansas, California, and Montana, say LMNT's flavored electrolyte mixes are marketed as "All Natural," free of "artificial" and "dodgy" ingredients, and "Paleo-Keto Friendly," but contain significant amounts of maltodextrin, which the complaint calls a highly processed ingredient not found in nature. According to the court's summary, the maltodextrin functions as a flavor carrier and is not listed as a separate ingredient.

The court noted that one plaintiff says she spent at least $1,900 on LMNT since August 2021, buying directly from LMNT's website. The amended complaint has 12 counts, including negligent misrepresentation, California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and implied and express warranty claims.

Other LMNT cases

Similar suits were filed elsewhere, including Thomas v. Drink LMNT, Inc., No. 0:25-cv-61401, filed July 11, 2025 in the Southern District of Florida as a proposed national class action. LMNT denies the claims.

Liquid I.V. is made by The LIV Group, owned by Unilever.

No preservatives

Meza-Soliven v. The LIV Group, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00019, was filed January 3, 2024 in the Southern District of California. It says Liquid I.V. Hydration Multiplier mixes are labeled "No Preservatives" even though they contain citric acid, which the plaintiffs say acts as a preservative.

Sugar free

Ulrich v. The LIV Group, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-08349, was filed August 12, 2026. It claims sugar-free Liquid I.V. mixes advertised as "0 sugar" with "Total Sugars 0g" contain 4 or 5 grams of allulose per stick, which the plaintiffs say counts as a sugar under federal and California labeling rules. It brings claims under California consumer laws and New York General Business Law.

Liquid I.V. has also been sued in other courts in 2026, including a Washington state case that the company removed to federal court in Seattle in September 2026. The company has not been found liable in any of them.

In the LMNT case, the court heard argument on May 28, 2026 and ruled on September 21, 2026. It granted LMNT's motion only as to Count II (unjust enrichment) and the requests for injunctive and other equitable relief, dismissing those with prejudice, and let the consumer protection, misrepresentation, and warranty claims proceed. The court also issued a preliminary pretrial conference order, so the case is headed into discovery. That is a meaningful step, but it is not a finding that LMNT did anything wrong. See how a class action moves forward.

What comes next in the LMNT case: after a ruling like this, the parties usually exchange initial disclosures and propose a schedule for discovery, expert reports, and a class certification motion. That process often takes a year or more. LMNT could also seek to settle; many food labeling cases resolve after surviving a motion to dismiss because the cost of discovery rises sharply. Either way, nothing requires buyers to act now.

The Liquid I.V. cases are at earlier or less visible stages. New suits in 2026, including the sugar-free case and the Washington state case removed to federal court in September 2026, show that the company faces pressure on several label claims at once. Multiple cases over the same product are sometimes consolidated or coordinated, which can delay any settlement.

Each electrolyte case centers on one ingredient that is legal and common but, according to the plaintiffs, does not match the label's promise.

Maltodextrin in LMNT

Maltodextrin is a powder made from starch that is widely used as a filler and to carry flavors. The LMNT plaintiffs say it is a highly processed ingredient not found in nature, so it conflicts with "All Natural" and "No Artificial Ingredients" claims, and that it conflicts with a "Paleo-Keto Friendly" claim. According to the court, the plaintiffs allege it is used as a flavor carrier within the natural flavors and not listed separately. LMNT disputes that its labels are misleading.

Citric acid in Liquid I.V.

Citric acid gives a tart taste and can also help preserve products. The Meza-Soliven complaint says that means Liquid I.V. cannot claim "No Preservatives." Companies often respond that citric acid is used for flavor, not preservation. The same argument appears in the Rachael Ray Nutrish case, where a judge let a similar claim proceed in March 2026, and in the Costco rotisserie chicken case.

Allulose in sugar-free Liquid I.V.

Allulose is a rare sugar that tastes sweet with few calories. For years, brands left it out of the Total Sugars line based on a 2020 FDA guidance document. In Franco v. Chobani, No. 25-2087, the Seventh Circuit held in July 2026 that allulose counts as a sugar under 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(ii), which undercuts sugar-free claims on products with meaningful amounts of it. The Ulrich case against Liquid I.V. was filed weeks later. See the Chobani page for that ruling.

None of these ingredients is claimed to be dangerous in the amounts used. The cases are about whether buyers got what the label promised and paid extra for it.

The LMNT plaintiffs define the proposed nationwide class as all U.S. persons who bought an LMNT product for personal, family, or household use during the maximum period allowed by law, with subclasses for California, Arkansas, and Montana. The Liquid I.V. cases center on California buyers, with a New York claim in the sugar-free case.

• You bought the product for yourself, not for resale.
• You bought a version carrying the challenged claim (natural, no preservatives, or sugar free).
• You live in, or bought in, a state covered by the proposed class.

The court decides the final class period and definition at class certification or settlement. You do not need to do anything now; see how joining works.

LMNT sells heavily through its own website and subscriptions, so many buyers already have a complete purchase record in their account. Liquid I.V. is sold widely at retail, so its buyers may need to rely on store app histories, warehouse club records, or card statements. Either kind of record helps if a settlement offers higher payments with proof.

No settlement exists for either brand. If these cases settle, the usual measure is a partial refund based on the premium buyers paid for the natural or sugar-free claim, often paid per unit with a cap for buyers without receipts. LMNT's direct website sales could make it easier to document purchases, since the company holds order records. The Montana court dismissed the requests for injunctive and equitable relief with prejudice, so any recovery in that case would come through damages claims rather than a court order to change labels. For a sense of scale in similar drink cases, see the Poppi and Olipop page.

The size of individual purchases can be significant for daily users. According to the court's summary, one LMNT plaintiff spent at least $1,900 on the products since August 2021, and another at least $700 since March 2022. Buyers like these would usually be able to claim more in a settlement that pays per unit with proof, but refund formulas rarely return the full price, because the theory is that buyers overpaid for a claim, not that the product had no value.

The FDA has no binding definition of "natural" on food labels, so courts ask whether a reasonable consumer would be misled. Maltodextrin and citric acid are common and legal ingredients; the question is whether calling a product "all natural" or "preservative free" is misleading when it contains them. Sugar-free claims are different, because FDA rules set a threshold of less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, so the allulose case turns on whether allulose counts as a sugar for that claim.

The statute of limitations varies: for example, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act allows 3 years and its Unfair Competition Law allows 4 years. Filing a class action generally pauses these deadlines for proposed class members.

Warranty claims matter too. The Montana court let the plaintiffs' implied and express warranty claims survive, rejecting at this stage LMNT's argument under California Commercial Code section 2607(3)(A) that buyers failed to give notice of the breach within a reasonable time. The court said it needed more facts about when and whether the plaintiffs sought refunds before deciding that issue. Warranty claims can be valuable because they turn on what the label promised rather than on the company's intent.

As of September 2026, neither LMNT nor Liquid I.V. has a settlement or claim form.

1. Download your LMNT order history or subscription records now; they are the strongest proof of purchase.
2. Keep Liquid I.V. receipts from warehouse clubs and online orders.
3. Photograph the labels with the challenged claims.
4. If a settlement is announced, file only on the official settlement website.

If you have a larger individual claim, independent attorneys can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: supplement mislabeling and Starbucks labeling suits.

How the free case review works: you tell us what you bought, roughly how much and for how long, and what happened. It is free and there is no obligation. If your situation fits cases that independent attorneys are handling, one may contact you. If a settlement is reached, you would file only through its official settlement website.