Lawsuit Update Center
Prime Energy Drink is a new product marketed by YouTube influencers that has become extremely popular with young consumers. Prime has done a textbook job of marking to children. Kids who do not even like the taste of Prime drink it because the like what it represents.
Recently, however, two separate consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against the makers of Prime Energy.
One lawsuit alleges that Prime Energy is falsely marketed to children despite known health risks associated with its high caffeine content.
The other lawsuit focuses on Grape Prime Energy. This lawsuit asserts that the Grape flavor of Prime Energy is falsely marketed as “healthy” when it actually contains very high levels of harmful chemicals called PFAS. This page will summarize both of these lawsuits.
About Prime Energy Drink
Prime Energy was launched in 2023 and is the brainchild of social media superstar Logan Paul, who started it with former boxing rival Olajide Olayinka Williams Olatunji, aka “KSI”.1 Combining their YouTube and social media channels, these popular influencers have close to 100 million followers. According to experts, it’s this cult-like following that has fans, primarily children, waking up at the crack of dawn to secure a can of Prime Energy.
Both Logan Paul and KSI are controversial and well-known YouTubers who cleverly market Prime Energy to a target audience of teenagers and youth under the age of 18.3
Prime Energy’s youth-oriented marketing campaign appeals to “Gen Z” and even “Gen Alpha” consumers with fun photographs, colorful packaging, sweet flavors, and sports arena advertising, including numerous commercials and marketing stunts and ploys that cater to a youthful audience. To say the least, this marketing campaign worked.
Lawsuit Alleges Prime Energy Markets to Children Despite Health Risks
A consumer class action lawsuit was filed in July alleging that Prime Energy Drink is falsely and deceptively marketed towards child consumers, despite the fact that the drink contains very high caffeine levels and poses health risks for young people.
The lawsuit points out that by establishing that Prime Energy is clearly and intentionally marketed and sold almost entirely to very young consumers. The lawsuit then notes that each Prime Energy drink contains 200 mg of caffeine (the equivalent of more than six cans of Coke or Pepsi).
According to the CDC, caffeine and other stimulant substances contained in energy drinks have no place in the diet of children and adolescents. The Complaint goes on to cite various studies reported by the CDC about the health risks of high-caffeine energy drinks when consumed by young children.
All of Prime Energy’s uniform marketing is designed to convince reasonable consumers that the Product is a healthy hydration drink containing various minerals and supplements and, accordingly, the youth to whom Prime Energy’s marketing is targeted reasonably and fairly believe that the product does not contain ingredients known to be harmful to the human body.
The class action lawsuit (T.K., et al. v. Prime Hydration LLC, et al.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The lawsuit asserts that consumers, particularly young individuals, lack the expertise required to assess the risks associated with elevated caffeine levels.
The lawsuit asserts that the packaging and marketing of Prime is highly misleading, particularly with respect to the safety and/or risks of the high caffeine levels in the drink.
The complaint argues that consumers would not have purchased Prime Energy drinks, whether for themselves or their children, had they been adequately informed about the potential risks associated with the caffeine content of the product.
The lawsuit looks to represent a class including everyone in the U.S. who bought a Prime Energy drink for personal or household consumption and not for resale.
Lawsuit Alleging Prime Energy Drink Contains Toxic PFAS
Prime has also been the target of another consumer class action lawsuit in the last year, this time involving its Prime Hydration Sports Drink. This second lawsuit asserts that independent testing has determined that grape flavor Prime contains significant levels of harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are known to be harmful and toxic to the human body and studies suggest that they may also be linked to cancer.
The Prime Energy class action lawsuit asserts claims of consumer fraud based on Prime’s false and misleading advertising. Specifically, the lawsuit contends that Prime product labeling and marketing claims that the energy drink is healthy and that it improves athletic performance, and restores the body to an optimized state. In effect, Prime markets its product as something that is good and healthy for the human body.
The lawsuit contends that these representations about the healthiness of Prime induced consumers to buy the drink, and that these representations were clearly false because grape flavor Prime contained toxic PFAS.
The Prime Energy lawsuit specifically asserts that the presence of PFAS in Prime made the drink “adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to sell.” The complaint also claims that the manufacturer’s deceptive conduct “harms the public-at-large” and creates the potential for future harm due to the PFAS chemicals in its drinks.
The lead plaintiff in the class action case is Elizabeth Castillo, a California woman who purchased Prime Hydration on multiple occasions but says she would not have bought it at all if the product had been accurately marketed and labeled. Stated more simply, if the presence of PFAS in the drink would have been disclosed, she never would have bought it. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of a class of consumers including everyone who purchased Prime Hydration Grape Sports Drink in the U.S.
The complaint alleges the company’s actions were both deliberate and deceptive, aimed at exploiting consumer trust and misrepresenting the healthfulness of their product. Despite awareness of consumer concerns regarding the inclusion of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in their products, the Defendant continued to market their product with health-centric claims. This marketing strategy was designed to mislead consumers into believing their product was made with healthy, beneficial ingredients, free from toxic chemicals, particularly PFAS, which are known to pose risks to human health.
The lawsuit asserts that the Defendant’s product contains PFAS chemicals, specifically perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), at levels that not only contradict the product’s advertised health benefits but also exceed regulatory advisories for safety, such as those set by the EPA for drinking water. These chemicals are associated with adverse health effects, yet the product was marketed without disclosing their presence, misleading consumers about the true nature of what they were purchasing.
Another key point is the FDA regulates food safety, including labeling requirements to protect consumers. Under these regulations, a food product is considered “adulterated” if it contains harmful substances, and “misbranded” if its labeling is misleading. By failing to disclose the presence of PFAS, the Defendant’s product is argued to be both adulterated and misbranded, making its sale illegal under federal and California law, rendering the product without economic value, and misleading consumers.
The complaint further argues that the Defendant had a duty to ensure the safety of its products, including conducting regular testing for contaminants like PFAS, especially before making the product available for consumer purchase. However, it is claimed that the Defendant made no such efforts to test for or disclose the presence of PFAS in its marketing materials, thereby neglecting its responsibilities and misleading consumers regarding the safety and healthfulness of the product.
In essence, the complaint seeks redress for the alleged harm caused by the Defendant’s deceptive practices, including the financial impact on consumers who purchased the product under false pretenses, and aims to stop the Defendant from continuing such practices in the future.
Lawsuit Targets Grape Flavored Prime Only
One thing that is important to understand is the lawsuit involving PFAS in Prime drinks only involves the Grape flavor of the Prime Hydration drink. Why grape? The grape flavor Prime drink is the only product that was found to contain PFAS based on independent laboratory testing. Testing of Prime drinks found that the grape flavor contained significant levels of 8 different PFAS. This is presumably related to the chemicals or processing that goes into making the artificial grape flavor used in the Prime drinks.
