Overview:
Fairlife Milk is accused of false and deceptive advertising again. How might litigators use consumer survey research to milk insights?
Moo-ve Over, Low Sugar; Make Way for Protein
Protein-enriched foods and drinks are a rapidly growing business in the United States, and consumers are willing to pay more for more protein. Estimates for the high-protein food sector reached 66.8 billion in 2023 and are projected to reach over USD 117 billion by 2034. Consumers’ interest in this market is driven by the purported benefits of consuming high-protein diets for weight management, and interest in fitness and wellness. In social media, high-protein food is a veritable craze. Consumer product brands of all sorts are adding protein and promoting it, and 71 percent of consumers were looking to increase their protein consumption in 2024.
With such a large percentage of consumers looking for more protein, products with added protein have a market advantage. Fairlife Milk is not only a high-protein milk alternative, but is also advertised as cruelty-free and sustainable.
Fairlife Milk
Fairlife LLC was founded in 2012 through a partnership between Fair Oaks Farm and the Coca-Cola Company. Fairlife Milk is a filtered dairy product that separates milk into basic components: water, protein, vitamins, minerals, lactose, and fat. The filtration process results in a milk that is higher in protein and lower in sugar than unaltered milk, and lactose-free.
Coca-Cola purchased full ownership of Fairlife in 2020, marketing the products as not only high-protein and healthy, but also sustainably produced. This reaches ethically motivated consumers as well the health conscious, justifying the brand’s higher price. Fairlife produces related products, including protein shakes, creamers, and other dairy-based high-protein beverages, and is a billion-dollar brand.
Alleged Unfair Animal Treatment at Fairlife
An undercover investigation by the animal rights group Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) released video footage from Fair Oaks Farms, Fairlife’s primary suppliers, showing workers neglecting and physically mistreating cows and calves. This contradicted Fairlife’s marketing commitment to animal welfare, humane treatment, and sustainable farming practices. As a result, many retailers pulled Fairlife products and consumers filed false and deceptive advertising suits, claiming they would not have paid the higher price for Fairlife products if they had known the truth about animal welfare at Fair Oaks Farms. The lawsuits were later consolidated into a class action (In re Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation), naming The Coca-Cola Company, Fairlife, LLC, and Fair Oaks Farms as defendants.
Exposing the Dispute
The plaintiffs in the class action alleged that Fairlife’s representations about treating cows humanely induced consumers to pay a price premium for products they believed were ethically sourced. The parties reached a $21 million settlement in 2022, but in 2024, an Arizona based nonprofit investigated two other Fairlife suppliers, Rainbow Valley Dairy and Butterfield Dairy, and the report uncovered allegations of criminal-level animal cruelty, as well as poisoning of water supplies. This led to another class-action lawsuit, In re Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
With these issues going to courts, judges and parties may consider how the advertising claims of animal welfare and sustainable production influenced consumer purchasing decisions. Consumers allege that Fairlife engaged in false advertising under federal and state consumer protection laws; that is, Fairlife’s marketing suggested its cows were treated humanely and sustainably, despite evidence to the contrary. The lawsuits allege that these claims misled consumers into believing Fairlife’s products were made with higher ethical standards, and that this led consumers to pay more than they otherwise would have. Fairlife argued that its claims were general and not meant as enforceable guarantees, and that consumers may have purchased products for nutritional reasons unrelated to sustainability.
Milking the Most from Consumer Survey Research
False advertising cases hinge largely on how consumers interpret marketing messages, and whether those interpretations drive purchasing behavior. Consumer survey research is commonly used in complex class-action cases like the Fairlife class action. These surveys may ask a representative sample of consumers what messages they took away from the disputed advertisements. For example, a survey could test whether consumers believed Fairlife’s products came from humanely treated cows, based on packaging and advertising. If a large percentage of consumers interpreted the claims as guarantees of animal welfare, this could support the plaintiffs’ case. A survey might also measure the importance of disputed claims, which can provide evidence for a potential damages calculation.
False Advertising Class Action Advantage of Consumer Surveys
Courts increasingly look to consumer survey evidence to arrive at objective, data-driven estimates that may affect a determination regarding damages. This makes high-quality, methodologically sound research an important source of evidence in false advertising disputes. As consumers demand transparency and authenticity, and as regulators and courts scrutinize marketing practices more closely, companies must recognize that misleading claims not only erode trust but can also lead to costly litigation.
This post was written with 100% public information.