Washington consumers who bought 19 listed Celsius drinks and powders on or after Oct. 26, 2022 are the proposed group who can sue in this case. The lawsuit is a proposed class action, meaning one buyer sues on behalf of similar buyers, but the court has not yet approved that group. Annabelle Nielsen filed the case on Oct.
26, 2026 in Seattle federal court against Celsius Holdings Inc. and Celsius Inc. over fat-burning and metabolism marketing, according to Law Commentary in the Law Commentary report. The claims invoke the Washington Consumer Protection Act and fraudulent concealment and seek damages, restitution and an injunction.
Official resource:
- Read the original argument from Lawcommentary — Use this page to read the original argument in context.
Table of Contents
- Which purchases qualify under the proposal?
- Which products and labels are included?
- Why does the lawsuit say the claims mislead?
- What should potential class members do now?
Which purchases qualify under the proposal?
The proposed class covers Washington buyers of the listed products beginning Oct. 26, 2022, according to Law Commentary in the Law Commentary report. Purchases outside Washington or before that date fall outside the current proposal.
Only the products named in the complaint count, not every Celsius item. Nielsen points to her own purchases at Amazon, Target, Costco, 7-Eleven and Fred Meyer from December 2024 to September 2026. She says she paid a premium because of the claims and would have chosen cheaper options without them. That price-premium theory is common in consumer cases.
Which products and labels are included?
The case targets 19 products, including Essential Energy sparkling drinks, Fizz Free varieties and On-the-Go powders. At issue are front-label phrases such as "Burns Body Fat," "Accelerates Metabolism" and "Live Fit." The complaint contrasts those front-label promises with a back-panel statement that "CELSIUS alone does not" cause weight loss without diet and exercise.
Plaintiffs describe that disclaimer as inconspicuous small print. Shoppers often decide at the front of the can, so placement matters.
Why does the lawsuit say the claims mislead?
Plaintiffs allege the labels suggest the drink independently burns fat. The back panel then limits that message to use with diet and exercise. That gap forms the core deception claim.
The complaint also challenges six metabolism studies cited by Celsius as company-funded and limited to temporary metabolic increases, sometimes measured over hours rather than sustained fat loss. Short-term calorie burn is not the same as lasting body-fat reduction. The court will decide what the labels conveyed and whether buyers paid more as a result.
What should potential class members do now?
No class has been certified and no settlement or claims process exists yet. Hagens Berman lists the matter as Active and also tracks the related Valente v.
Celsius case, as shown on the Hagens Berman case page. Do not send money to join, and do not file a claim form because none exists. If a settlement later opens, eligibility will turn on proof of Washington purchase of a listed product in the period.
- Save receipts, order confirmations, loyalty-history printouts and empty-can photos
- Write down store, date, flavor and price while the memory is fresh
- Keep bank or credit-card statements that show the purchase
- Watch the federal docket and the law firm's case page for certification or settlement news