Soda Scam Exposed: Lawsuit Alleges Poppi’s ‘Gut Healthy’ Claims Are False and Misleading

San Francisco, California – A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Poppi prebiotic soda, claiming that the beverage’s “gut healthy” promises are misleading. The lawsuit, filed by Kristin Cobbs in San Francisco, alleges that Poppi’s advertising does not accurately reflect the actual health benefits of the soda. The parent company, VNGR Beverage LLC based in Austin, Texas, is facing legal action from consumers who feel misled by the product’s claims.

Poppi, which has rapidly gained popularity and secured shelf-space in major retailers like Whole Foods, Target, and Costco, has been criticized for its low prebiotic fiber content. The plaintiffs argue that the amount of prebiotic fiber in the soda is too low to provide any significant gut health benefits. They claim that consumers would have to consume a substantial amount of Poppi to see any potential health benefits, which would be negated by the high sugar content of the soda.

The lawsuit also points to studies showing that excessive consumption of the type of prebiotic fiber found in Poppi, agave inulin, may have negative health effects. The plaintiffs assert that consumers, like Cobbs, were unaware of these potential risks when purchasing the product based on its health claims. The lawsuit demands a trial by jury to address the alleged false advertising by Poppi regarding the health benefits of their soda.

Poppi gained traction in the beverage market after appearing on the television show “Shark Tank” and receiving an investment. However, the lawsuit raises questions about the accuracy of the product’s claims and the impact on consumers who believed they were purchasing a truly “gut healthy” soda. Fox News Digital has reached out to Poppi for comment on the lawsuit, but the company has not yet responded.

As the legal battle unfolds, consumers and health advocates will be closely watching the outcome to see how companies like Poppi are held accountable for the marketing claims they make about their products. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accuracy in advertising, especially when it comes to health-related products.