A class-action lawsuit over alleged “forever chemicals” in Simply Orange Juice Company products is again in the spotlight. The complaint states that certain juices promoted as “all-natural” contain synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. PFAS are human-made chemicals tied to potential health concerns. The case attracts attention because it challenges marketing practices, pushes for clearer product details, and tests the confidence consumers place in major beverage companies.
Consumers who purchased Simply products say they trusted the packaging and marketing that highlighted simplicity and natural ingredients. They claim the undisclosed presence of PFAS in the drinks — absent from any ingredient list — violates consumer protection laws. This lawsuit could influence how food and beverage companies label and market their products. The case may also draw stronger regulatory attention to PFAS in consumer foods.
How the Lawsuit Started
Plaintiff Joseph Lurenz filed the original complaint in federal court on December 28, 2022. He alleged that Simply Tropical juice, a product made by Simply Orange Juice Company and owned by The Coca-Cola Company, contained PFAS despite being marketed as “all natural” and free of synthetic additives. Independent lab testing commissioned by Lurenz reportedly found PFAS levels well above safety guidelines. The complaint targeted marketing claims such as “all-natural ingredients,” “filtered water,” and “nothing to hide,” arguing those statements misled purchasers who expected a natural, chemical-free product.
Lurenz claimed that marketing and labeling created a “price premium” — a higher cost consumers willingly paid under the impression they received a better, natural product. The lawsuit sought class-wide relief under consumer protection statutes, breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Background of the Case
Simply Orange Juice Company began in 2001 as a chilled juice producer. Over time, it expanded beyond orange juice into a variety of fruit juices and smoothies. The brand became a significant player in the U.S. chilled-juice market. Concerns about PFAS in consumer products have grown across the country. PFAS do not break down easily. PFAS build up over time in the environment and in the human body. Health researchers have tied exposure to serious risks, including cancer, liver damage, immune system issues, and reproductive problems.
Rising regulatory attention on PFAS prompted a wave of class actions and related lawsuits. The filings targeted not only chemical manufacturers but also food and beverage companies accused of failing to disclose PFAS in their products. Simply’s labeling and marketing made the brand a target.
Key Allegations
Plaintiff claims Simply Orange misrepresented its product. The complaint argues that calling the product “all natural” and listing only water, juice, sugar, and natural flavors masked the existence of PFAS. The independent testing allegedly found PFAS — specifically PFOA and PFOS — at levels multiple times above safety guidelines.
The complaint further alleges breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Lurenz argues that consumers paid a premium for what they thought was “pure” juice free of synthetic chemicals. The presence of PFAS allegedly contradicts that representation.
Marketing practices also come under fire. The “Simply” name, the “filtered water” label, and other packaging and promotional language allegedly fostered consumer belief that the product was especially clean and natural — free from contaminants or chemical additives.
Timeline of the Simply Orange Juice Case
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
December 28, 2022 marks the filing of the original class-action complaint by the plaintiff. The suit alleges that independent lab testing of Simply Tropical juice revealed PFAS contamination. The marketing as “all-natural” is challenged as misleading.
Early 2023 saw media outlets report on the lawsuit. Several stories highlighted testing that allegedly found PFAS levels far above accepted safety limits. The case added momentum to growing concerns about PFAS in food and beverage products.
Company Response
The Coca-Cola Company and Simply Orange Juice Company deny any wrongdoing. They state that their juices meet quality and safety standards. They challenge the reliability of the independent testing and dispute that PFAS presence — if any — reflects widespread contamination.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
June 2024 marks the point when Judge Nelson S. Román of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The court found that Lurenz lacked standing because he did not show that he purchased juice identical to the sample used in the independent test. The judge concluded that a single test from an unspecified sample could not establish widespread PFAS contamination or show that the plaintiff purchased a contaminated product.
July 10, 2024, marked the court’s decision to grant leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on the same day. The amended complaint purports to include broader testing results across Simply Orange products, claiming widespread PFAS presence.
November 2024 — Defendants again file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, disputing both the reliability and sufficiency of the testing and contesting the legal premise that the juice’s marketing unlawfully misled reasonable consumers.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
The court’s June 2024 dismissal signaled skepticism toward “price-premium” theories when not backed by specific purchase-product testing. The judge characterized the complaint’s reliance on a solitary independent test as too speculative to sustain claims that all products or purchases were similarly contaminated.
Regulatory or Government Action
No agency action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or any other regulator has been publicly tied to the case. The lawsuit remains a private civil matter. Consumer-advocacy voices and environmental groups continue to press for greater PFAS oversight, but no formal regulatory determination against Simply had been announced as of the latest filings.
Settlement Timeline
No settlement has been reached. The case remains pending as of late 2025. The most recent ruling from October 2025 reaffirmed that the proposed class action could not move forward because the evidence remained too limited.
Current Status
The federal court dismissed the proposed class action definitively in late 2025. The judge found that the plaintiff failed to show any concrete harm and that the testing did not link the PFAS detection to the juice he personally bought. The case appears closed unless new, stronger evidence emerges.
Additional Case Details
The 2024 amended complaint expanded its reach beyond Simply Tropical juice and alleged PFAS contamination across all Simply-branded products. The shift moved the case from a single-product challenge to a broader attack on the entire brand line. The complaint sets out multiple legal claims, including violations of state consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that consumers often pay more for Simply juices because they believe they get a healthier, more “natural” product. The lawsuit sought to recover that price premium and possibly more, on behalf of a nationwide class. Health-risk allegations are central to the public framing of the lawsuit. PFAS have been studied by scientists and regulators.
Studies link them to cancer, liver and kidney damage, immune system disruption, reproductive issues, and developmental problems. The complaint cites those risks to argue that the presence of PFAS undermines Simply’s “natural” representation. Critics note that the lawsuit does not assert that any buyer suffered a concrete illness because of PFAS exposure from Simply. The case focuses on misleading marketing — not on personal injury or disease claims.
Summary
The Simply Orange Juice PFAS lawsuit illustrates the tension between modern concerns over synthetic chemicals and the traditional marketing of natural foods. The case raised serious questions about whether “all-natural” marketing can survive scrutiny when third-party testing finds PFAS in allegedly pure products.
The courts so far have demanded concrete evidence tying the test results to the actual products purchased by the plaintiff. The 2025 dismissal signals potentially high barriers to class certification in PFAS-based food and beverage cases. Consumers and legal watchers are expected to keep following PFAS litigation and product labeling issues. The outcome may shape how juice and beverage companies present their products and could guide future regulatory policy on PFAS in foods.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you have any questions about this, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
