ZOA Energy, the energy drink brand co-founded by Dwayne Johnson, reached a $3 million settlement to resolve class action allegations that it falsely labeled its products as “0 Preservatives” when they contained citric acid and ascorbic acid—both preservation agents. The settlement applies to consumers who purchased ZOA Energy drinks with the misleading “0 Preservatives” label between March 1, 2021, and November 21, 2025. If you bought these products, you may be eligible for compensation ranging from $1 per can (with proof of purchase, up to $150 per claimant) to $10 per household without receipts.
This case, Mikhail Gershzon v. ZOA Energy, LLC, highlights an ongoing problem in the beverage industry: companies making blanket “zero preservative” claims while using ingredients that function as preservatives. For example, a consumer who purchased 50 cans of ZOA Energy during the claim period with receipts could receive $50 toward their claim (or up to the $150 maximum). This article explains who qualifies, how much the payout covers, the claim process, and what this settlement means for future labeling standards.
Table of Contents
- What Are the False Advertising Claims Against ZOA Energy?
- Which Consumers Are Eligible for This Settlement?
- What Compensation Will Claimants Receive?
- How Do You File a Claim in the ZOA Energy Settlement?
- What Documentation Do You Need for Your Claim?
- Understanding Citric Acid and Ascorbic Acid as Preservatives
- Similar Settlements and What This Means for Labeling Standards
What Are the False Advertising Claims Against ZOA Energy?
ZOA Energy labeled its products with “0 Preservatives” on the packaging and marketing materials, but independent analysis and legal discovery revealed that the drinks contained citric acid and ascorbic acid—both of which are preservative agents that extend shelf life and prevent spoilage. These ingredients serve the exact function that preservatives are designed to perform: inhibiting bacterial growth and maintaining product stability over time. The company’s labeling violated California consumer protection laws by making a false claim about the absence of preservatives when, chemically and functionally, preservatives were present in every container.
This is not a matter of technical semantics. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and citric acid actively preserve foods and beverages by preventing oxidation and microbial growth—the core definition of preservation. Consumers who specifically chose ZOA Energy because they believed they were avoiding preservatives were misled about what they were purchasing. The $3 million settlement acknowledges this deception without requiring ZOA Energy to admit wrongdoing, which is standard in class action litigation.
Which Consumers Are Eligible for This Settlement?
To be eligible, you must have purchased ZOA Energy drinks between March 1, 2021, and November 21, 2025, in any quantity. The critical requirement is that the product bore the “0 Preservatives” label—if you bought ZOA Energy without this specific claim on the packaging, your purchase does not qualify. You do not need to prove illness, allergic reaction, or any harm; the settlement is based on purchasing a product with a false label, which is considered consumer harm in itself. However, there are important timing limitations.
The deadline to submit a claim was February 20, 2026 (postmarked), which has already passed as of today. If you did not file a claim by that date, you are generally barred from receiving compensation, though there may be limited exceptions for documented mailing delays. The final approval hearing took place on March 26, 2026, in San Francisco, meaning the settlement is now finalized. If you missed the deadline, your only remaining option would be to object to the settlement before that final hearing date, but that window is also closed.
What Compensation Will Claimants Receive?
The $3 million settlement fund is divided among eligible claimants using a two-tier structure depending on whether you have proof of purchase. If you retained receipts—either paper or digital—from a grocery store, gas station, convenience store, or online retailer, you can claim $1 per can (up to 150 cans), for a maximum of $150 per household. For example, if you purchased 85 cans of ZOA Energy with invoices, your claim would be worth $85. If you purchased 200 cans, your payment would be capped at the $150 household maximum.
For households without receipts, claimants can receive a flat $10 per household, no questions asked. This does not require itemization of how many cans were purchased—simply confirming household membership and purchase period suffices. If the settlement fund runs out before all valid claims can be paid in full, the amounts will be prorated; if the fund receives fewer claims than anticipated, each claimant may receive more. Given that the settlement covers five years of potential purchases across the US market, the actual per-claim payouts depend on how many people file.
How Do You File a Claim in the ZOA Energy Settlement?
Claimants must submit claims through the official settlement website at www.ZOASettlement.com. The site provides digital and printable claim forms where you enter basic information: your name, address, email, phone number, and details about your purchases. If submitting a claim with proof of purchase, you must provide or attach receipts—photographs of receipts, digital receipts from retailers, or original documents are all acceptable. The settlement administrator will verify the documentation and process your claim.
The submission process is straightforward but carries a critical deadline that has now passed (February 20, 2026, postmarked). This means that as of today’s date, no new claim forms are being accepted. Claims submitted after this deadline will be rejected, and claimants are generally not eligible for compensation. The only parties with remaining options are those who filed valid objections before the February 13, 2026 objection deadline; however, without also filing a timely claim, even objectors receive no payment from the settlement fund.
What Documentation Do You Need for Your Claim?
If filing with proof of purchase (which no longer applies given the deadline), you would need to gather receipts showing the purchase date, store location, and ZOA Energy product name. Digital receipts from Amazon, Walmart, or other online retailers are acceptable, as are photographs of paper receipts from convenience stores or gas stations. The settlement does not require the actual product packaging or UPC codes—the receipt alone is sufficient proof.
For claims without receipts, no documentation beyond your signature and attestation is required. This flexibility exists to capture consumers who purchased the product but lost or discarded their receipts over a five-year period. However, the settlement administrator reserves the right to contact claimants to verify information if a claim seems implausible (for example, claiming 500 cans purchased from a single convenience store). Any false statements on a claim form could result in denial of the claim and potential legal consequences, so accuracy is essential.
Understanding Citric Acid and Ascorbic Acid as Preservatives
Citric acid and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) are not novel preservatives—they are common, FDA-approved preservation agents used in thousands of food and beverage products. Citric acid lowers the pH of products, creating an environment hostile to bacterial growth, while ascorbic acid prevents oxidation that would otherwise cause flavor and color degradation. Both serve identical preservative functions to synthetic alternatives like sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate.
The only real difference is that citric and ascorbic acids are derived from natural sources and are also nutrients, which may have led ZOA Energy to believe (incorrectly, under consumer protection law) that labeling them as absent was justified. This distinction matters because some consumers actively seek out products with “natural” or “no artificial preservatives” labeling, and they may interpret “0 Preservatives” to mean something different than it legally means. A product labeled “no artificial preservatives” while containing citric acid would be accurate; a label claiming “0 Preservatives” is false, regardless of the source or form of the preservatives. The ZOA settlement reinforces that the function—not the source—determines whether something is a preservative.
Similar Settlements and What This Means for Labeling Standards
The ZOA Energy settlement is part of a broader wave of beverage and supplement litigation targeting misleading “clean label” claims. Companies have faced settlements for labeling products “natural,” “preservative-free,” “non-GMO,” or “chemical-free” when the products contained ingredients that contradicted these claims. Each settlement tightens the standards for what companies can legally claim on packaging, pushing the industry toward more precise and honest labeling practices.
Going forward, beverage companies will face increased scrutiny from state attorneys general and private litigants over preservative claims. The settlement signals to manufacturers that “0 Preservatives” language is high-risk if the product contains any preservation agents whatsoever, whether natural or synthetic. Future litigation will likely target other common false claims in the energy drink and supplement sectors, particularly around terms like “clean,” “pure,” and “natural”—words that are often ambiguous and subject to legal challenge.