In re VNGR Beverage, LLC Litigation
4:24-cv-03229
N.D. Cal.May 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against VNGR Beverage, LLC, alleging misleading marketing of Poppi Prebiotic Soda as “gut healthy.”
- Plaintiffs claim Poppi is actually harmful to gut health due to low fiber, high sugar, and the use of agave inulin, which they allege is less effective and potentially adverse.
- Multiple related actions were consolidated; after litigation and mediation, the parties reached a settlement.
- The settlement establishes an $8.9 million non-reversionary fund for consumers who purchased Poppi products between January 2020 and the notice date.
- The court considered the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed settlement under Rule 23 before granting preliminary approval.
- The parties agreed to a class notice plan and procedures for members to submit claims, object, or opt out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class Certification (Rule 23) | All Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements met: numerosity, commonality, etc. | Not contested at this stage (unopposed motion) | Requirements met; class certified for settlement. |
| Fairness of Settlement Amount | Settlement is adequate; per-unit payments exceed estimated trial recovery | Not explicit, but Defendant does not admit liability | Settlement within range of possible approval. |
| Attorneys’ Fees & Incentive Awards | Requests up to 30% fees, incentives up to $5,000 per plaintiff | Reserves right to oppose fee request, but otherwise not contested | 30% above benchmark but no clear sailing; subject to final approval. |
| Notice and Claims Process | Notice reaches all class members, revised to clarify key terms | Agrees to robust digital and publication notice | Notice plan adequate with required clarifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (articulates Rule 23 requirements for class certification)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for class action settlement approval)
- Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards and propriety of incentive awards in class actions)
- Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) (requirements for adequacy of class notice)
- Stanton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (factors for evaluating incentive awards for class plaintiffs)