Defending Citric Acid Lawsuits: Fight or Settle
Served with a complaint or a demand letter? These notices carry hard response deadlines. Request same-day intake — call (800) 559-4628 or schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.
As discussed in the previous article on the characterizing-flavor rule, the threshold for citric acid labeling suits is low. Most of these cases have the potential to head to trial. This is the key consideration when defending citric acid lawsuits: fight or settle. Plaintiffs’ firms frame them as consumer-fraud class actions under state “deceptive practices” and false-advertising laws. The claim is that a front-of-pack “naturally flavored” statement misleads consumers if synthetic acidulants — citric or malic acid — shape taste. They then seek to certify a class of purchasers and demand refunds (price-premium restitution) and injunctive relief. Because the pleading bar is low and the characterizing-flavor rule provides the hook, these cases often clear the early-motion stage and move into costly discovery.
Defending Citric Acid Lawsuits on Motion
The first objective is a quick win: move to dismiss. It is the fastest and least expensive path. In practice, though, that outcome is a long shot. Plaintiff firms file in venues like New York, California, and Illinois — jurisdictions with favorable consumer-protection laws and generous jury pools. Courts there often accept, at the pleadings stage, that citric acid can influence taste enough to implicate the characterizing-flavor rule, which creates fact questions that block dismissal. Given the ambiguity in the FDA framework and the plaintiffs’ savvy forum selection, a cheap, early exit is unlikely. Most cases advance into discovery, where litigation becomes notoriously expensive. Once a claim survives dismissal, the sheer expense of litigation tilts all the leverage toward the plaintiff. It is sometimes rational, therefore, to treat the survival of the case as a foregone conclusion.
When to Fight and When to Settle: Initial Considerations
Counsel with experience in these cases can usually assess very early whether a manufacturer should fight or settle. The first thing counsel looks at is product sales. Because these are consumer-protection suits, the “violation” arises when a purchaser is “deceived” into buying the product. Damages and settlement pressure scale with units sold. For products with low sales volumes (in the low thousands of units), these cases often resolve for $10,000–$25,000. As much as it may hurt to write a check to a plaintiff’s firm, in these ranges an early settlement is economically rational. For products with higher sales volumes (tens to hundreds of thousands of units and up), initial demands are often large enough to justify investing in depositions and experts. Well-aimed motions supported by credible expert work can shift leverage back toward the manufacturer.
Fight vs. settle: how the economics line up
| Units sold at retail | Typical exposure / demand posture | Usual rational path | Indicative cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low thousands | Damages small; class value limited | Settle early | ~$10,000–$25,000 settlement |
| Tens of thousands | Demand large enough to justify motion practice | Selective fight, then settle from strength | $50,000–$150,000+ to litigate through experts |
| Hundreds of thousands+ | High class value; plaintiff well-funded | Fight to shift leverage, settle on terms | $150,000–$500,000+ for full defense |
Illustrative ranges based on the firm’s experience defending characterizing-flavor matters; actual figures depend on venue, sales data, and expert needs. At any size, when defending citric acid lawsuits, “fight” or “settle” is an early decision — a feature of consumer-protection law. The next articles cover specific tactics for both fighting back and settling intelligently.
Jason Foscolo
Founder of The Food Law Firm — fractional general counsel for food & beverage businesses nationwide.