ZOA Energy, the energy drink brand co-founded by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, has agreed to a $3 million class action settlement over allegations that its “0 Preservatives” labeling was misleading to consumers. The case, *Mikhail Gershzon v. ZOA Energy, LLC* (Case No. 3:23-cv-5444-JD), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and centers on the claim that ZOA Energy drinks actually contain citric acid and ascorbic acid, both of which can function as preservatives.
If you purchased any ZOA Energy drink labeled “0 Preservatives” between March 1, 2021 and November 21, 2025, you may be eligible for compensation of up to $150 with proof of purchase or up to $10 per household without receipts. ZOA Energy denies all allegations and maintains that its labeling and marketing are “truthful, accurate, and compliant with applicable law.” The court did not rule in favor of either side. Instead, both parties agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Preservative Free Claims Against ZOA Energy and Why Do They Matter?
- What ZOA Energy Denies and Why the Settlement Is Not an Admission of Wrongdoing
- Who Is Eligible for the ZOA Energy Settlement and How Much Can You Receive?
- How to File a Claim for the ZOA Energy Preservative Settlement
- Key Deadlines and the Final Approval Hearing
- The Broader Pattern of Preservative Labeling Lawsuits
- What This Settlement Means Going Forward
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Are the Preservative Free Claims Against ZOA Energy and Why Do They Matter?
The core allegation in this settlement is straightforward: the plaintiff claims that zoa Energy’s “0 preservatives” label is deceptive because the drinks contain citric acid and ascorbic acid. While these ingredients serve multiple functions in food and beverage products — citric acid adds tartness and ascorbic acid is a form of vitamin C — both are also widely recognized in the food science community as substances that can act as preservatives. Citric acid, for instance, is routinely used in canned goods, jams, and beverages specifically to extend shelf life by inhibiting microbial growth. Ascorbic acid similarly prevents oxidation, which is one of the primary mechanisms by which food products degrade over time. This distinction matters because the FDA does not have a single, rigid definition for what constitutes a “preservative” in all contexts.
An ingredient can serve a primary purpose — such as flavoring or nutritional supplementation — while simultaneously performing a preservative function. The plaintiff’s argument is that by labeling the product as having zero preservatives, ZOA created an impression that the drinks contained no ingredients capable of preserving the product, which consumers relied on when making purchasing decisions. For shoppers who specifically seek preservative-free products for health or dietary reasons, this kind of labeling carries real weight at the point of sale. It is worth noting that this type of dual-function ingredient lawsuit has become increasingly common in the food and beverage industry. Similar cases have been brought against other brands over claims about “natural” ingredients, “no added sugar,” and “preservative free” labeling where the technical reality was more detailed than the marketing suggested.
What ZOA Energy Denies and Why the Settlement Is Not an Admission of Wrongdoing
ZOA Energy has been firm in its position: the company denies all allegations and insists its labeling is truthful, accurate, and fully compliant with applicable law. This is a critical point that consumers should understand. A class action settlement is not a court ruling, and agreeing to settle does not mean ZOA admitted to any wrongdoing or that the court found the labeling to be deceptive. Both sides chose to resolve the dispute rather than continue through what would have been a costly and time-consuming trial. From ZOA’s perspective, there is a reasonable argument that citric acid and ascorbic acid are included in its formulation for purposes other than preservation — citric acid for flavor and ascorbic acid as a vitamin supplement.
Many beverage companies use these ingredients in the same way and do not classify them as preservatives on their labels. However, the plaintiff’s legal theory did not require proving that ZOA intentionally deceived consumers, only that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the claim. That lower threshold is often enough to survive early legal challenges and push a case toward settlement. If you are a consumer who purchased ZOA products and felt the labeling accurately described the product, you are not obligated to file a claim. You also have the option to opt out of the settlement entirely, which preserves your right to pursue individual legal action if you choose — though the practical value of doing so in most cases is limited given the relatively small per-unit damages involved.
Who Is Eligible for the ZOA Energy Settlement and How Much Can You Receive?
Eligibility for the ZOA Energy settlement covers a broad group: any U.S. resident who purchased any ZOA Energy drink labeled “0 Preservatives” between March 1, 2021 and November 21, 2025. The purchase must have been for personal consumption, meaning retailers, distributors, or anyone who bought the product for resale purposes are excluded from the class. The payment structure creates two tiers depending on whether you can document your purchases. If you have proof of purchase — receipts, bank or credit card statements, or other records showing ZOA Energy transactions — you can claim $1 per can up to a maximum of $150.
For those without proof of purchase, you can still file a claim for $1 per can, but the total is capped at $10 per household. That $10 cap without receipts is notably low compared to some other food and beverage settlements, but it reflects the reality that most consumers do not retain grocery receipts for years. If you regularly purchased ZOA products and have any credit card statements that show purchases from retailers where you bought the drinks, those records could help you qualify for the higher tier. One practical example: if you bought a case of 12 ZOA cans every month for two years, that would be 288 cans and $288 in potential claims — but the cap limits you to $150 even with full documentation. Meanwhile, someone who bought a single can and has no receipt can still claim $1 through the no-proof pathway.
How to File a Claim for the ZOA Energy Preservative Settlement
Filing a claim can be done through the official settlement website at www.zoasettlement.com, where you can submit your claim online. Alternatively, you can submit a claim form by mail, which must be postmarked by the claims deadline. The claims deadline was February 20, 2026, meaning that if you are reading this after that date, the window to submit a new claim has likely closed. When filing, you will need to provide basic identifying information including your name, address, and contact details.
For claims with proof of purchase, you will need to upload or attach documentation showing your ZOA Energy purchases during the class period. Acceptable proof typically includes store receipts, online order confirmations, loyalty program records, or bank and credit card statements that reflect the purchase. For claims without proof of purchase, you will attest under penalty of perjury to the number of cans purchased, so accuracy matters — inflating your claim is not worth the risk for a few extra dollars. The tradeoff between the two claim paths is clear: spending time digging through old financial records could net you up to $150, while filing without proof takes just a few minutes but caps your recovery at $10. If you use a grocery loyalty program or tend to pay with a credit card, checking your transaction history is the most efficient way to determine whether the documentation route is worth your effort.
Key Deadlines and the Final Approval Hearing
The settlement timeline includes several critical dates that class members should be aware of. The opt-out deadline was February 13, 2026, which was the last day for class members to exclude themselves from the settlement and preserve their right to file an independent lawsuit. The claims deadline was February 20, 2026, the final date to submit a claim form either online or by postmark. Missing these deadlines generally means forfeiting your right to compensation under this settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for March 26, 2026, at the San Francisco Courthouse.
At this hearing, the court will review the settlement terms, consider any objections filed by class members, and determine whether to grant final approval. If the settlement is approved, payments will be distributed to valid claimants after the administration process is complete, which can take several months. If you filed a claim before the deadline, no further action is required on your part unless the settlement administrator contacts you for additional information. One important limitation: if you opted out of the settlement before the February 13 deadline, you cannot then file a claim for payment. Opting out and filing a claim are mutually exclusive. Also, if the total valid claims exceed the $3 million fund, individual payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis, meaning you could receive less than the stated per-can amount.
The Broader Pattern of Preservative Labeling Lawsuits
The ZOA Energy case is part of a larger trend of consumer lawsuits challenging food and beverage labeling claims. In recent years, companies have faced legal action over terms like “all natural,” “no artificial ingredients,” and “preservative free” when their products contained ingredients that could technically fall under those excluded categories.
For example, several juice and tea brands have faced similar scrutiny for using citric acid while marketing products as preservative-free. These cases highlight a gap between marketing language and food science terminology that regulators have been slow to close. Until the FDA provides clearer guidance on when a multi-function ingredient should be disclosed as a preservative, consumers and manufacturers alike will continue to navigate this gray area — often in the courtroom.
What This Settlement Means Going Forward
The ZOA Energy settlement, while modest in per-consumer payouts, sends a signal to the broader energy drink and functional beverage market that labeling claims will face scrutiny. As consumers become more ingredient-conscious and plaintiff attorneys continue to target health-related marketing language, companies will likely invest more heavily in vetting their label claims before products reach shelves.
For consumers, the takeaway is practical: marketing claims on the front of a can or bottle are not always the full story. Reading the ingredient list and understanding what those ingredients do remains the most reliable way to evaluate whether a product meets your dietary or health standards. If you have questions about this specific settlement, the claims administratorclaims administrator[contact via the official settlement website], or you can visit www.zoasettlement.com for full settlement documents and status updates.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who qualifies for the ZOA Energy settlement?
Any U.S. resident who purchased a ZOA Energy drink labeled “0 Preservatives” between March 1, 2021 and November 21, 2025 for personal consumption. Purchases made for resale or distribution are excluded.
How much money can I get from the ZOA settlement?
With proof of purchase, you can receive $1 per can up to $150. Without proof of purchase, you can claim $1 per can up to a maximum of $10 per household.
What counts as proof of purchase for the ZOA settlement?
Acceptable documentation includes store receipts, online order confirmations, loyalty program records, and bank or credit card statements showing ZOA Energy purchases during the class period.
Did the court find that ZOA Energy’s labeling was misleading?
No. The court did not rule in favor of either side. ZOA Energy denies all allegations and maintains its labeling is truthful and compliant with applicable law. Both parties agreed to settle to avoid the cost and risk of continued litigation.
What happens if too many people file claims?
If the total amount of valid claims exceeds the $3 million settlement fund, individual payments may be reduced proportionally so that all valid claimants receive a share.
Can I still sue ZOA Energy individually after this settlement?
Only if you opted out of the settlement before the February 13, 2026 deadline. Class members who did not opt out are bound by the settlement terms and release their claims against ZOA Energy related to this issue.
You Might Also Like
- ZOA Energy Preservative Free Claims Settlement: Who Gets Credit Monitoring And For How Long
- ZOA Energy Preservative Free Claims Settlement: What Happens If You Miss The Deadline
- ZOA Energy Preservative Free Claims Settlement: Opt Out, Object, Or File A Claim