The celsius drink lawsuit examined here is Hezi v. Celsius Holdings, Inc., a consumer-labeling class action connected to an earlier California case. An April 5, 2023 judgment approved a $7.8 million settlement fund and labeling changes. The settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. The filed agreement also explains the historical consumer benefit formula: $1 per can or $5 per package of 14 qualifying powdered drinks, subject to claim limits, validation and proportional adjustments—not guaranteed final check amounts.
Quick Answer & Overview
Consumers challenged Celsius products’ “No Preservatives” labeling because the products contained citric acid, which plaintiffs alleged functioned as a preservative. Celsius disputed that characterization, contending that it used citric acid only for flavor.
The court approved a negotiated settlement rather than deciding that the allegations were true. The historical deadline for claims, objections and requests for exclusion was February 13, 2023.
As of October 27, 2026, the latest court order substantiated here for this labeling settlement is the April 5, 2023 final judgment. A company disclosure also reports funding paid to the settlement administrator, as explained below, but later administrative completion and actual individual payments remain unverified. Separate litigation described in Celsius’s August 6, 2026 quarterly report is addressed below. None of these records establishes that this settlement accepts claims today.
Case Snapshot & Key Facts
The federal case was Hezi et al. v. Celsius Holdings, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-09892-JHR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The final judgment identifies Amit Hezi, Joseph Nina and Daniel Prescod as class representatives and Celsius Holdings, Inc. as the defendant.
The judgment defined the nationwide settlement class as people who purchased Class Products in the United States between January 1, 2015, and November 23, 2022, for personal or household consumption—not resale or distribution. It excluded the presiding judges and their immediate families, Celsius and specified related persons and entities, the parties’ counsel, and timely opt-outs.
Section 1.9 of the agreement defines Class Products as any Celsius beverage, including original Celsius beverages sometimes labeled “Celsius Live Fit,” Celsius Heat, Celsius BCAA+Energy and Celsius with Stevia, plus Celsius On-The-Go and Flo Fusion powdered drinks. Eligibility therefore was not limited to the original canned beverage, but purchases still had to satisfy the class requirements.
Background: Allegations and Celsius’s Response
The agreement describes the central dispute as whether labeling products containing citric acid as having “No Preservatives” was misleading. Plaintiffs alleged that citric acid was a preservative; Celsius contended that its role in these products was flavoring, not preservation.
Celsius denied that its labeling, packaging or marketing was misleading and denied that consumers suffered harm from purchasing the products. The agreement describes settlement as a way to resolve costly litigation and avoid further expense and business disruption.
The judgment makes the distinction explicit: “The Settlement is not an admission by Defendant, nor is this Order a finding of the validity of any allegations or of any wrongdoing by Defendant.” This labeling settlement should not be presented as a judicial finding that the drinks were unsafe or caused physical injury.
Key Court Filings and Procedural Timeline
The April 2023 judgment records these milestones:
- March 19, 2019: Daniel Prescod filed Prescod v. Celsius Holdings, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
- November 23, 2021: Amit Hezi and Joseph Nina filed the federal action.
- November 22, 2022: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to facilitate resolving the claims in one action. The settlement agreement was also filed as Document 34-1. Preliminary approval followed in November 2022, before notice and the claims deadline.
- February 13, 2023: The established deadline for claims, objections and opt-outs.
- March 31, 2023: The final-approval hearing.
- April 5, 2023: Document 56 was filed, granting final approval and entering judgment.
The judgment dismissed the main action with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction over settlement interpretation, administration, implementation and enforcement. Those provisions coexist: dismissal did not eliminate the court’s stated role in enforcing the settlement.
Class Certification and Settlement Benefits
The court finally certified the nationwide class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Its findings were expressly limited to settlement and could not be used to support certification of a contested class in another action.
Section 4 of the agreement established the following historical cash-award terms for approved claims:
| Historical benefit term | Agreement’s calculation or limit |
|---|---|
| Canned drinks | $1 per qualifying can; a four-pack counted as four cans |
| Celsius On-The-Go and Flo Fusion powders | $5 per qualifying package of 14 |
| Approved claims with receipts | $250 base cash-award cap per claimant |
| Approved claims without receipts | $20 base cash-award cap per claimant |
These were historical claim terms, subject to validation and the proportional adjustments described below—not guaranteed payment amounts. The claim deadline was February 13, 2023.
Only one claim form was permitted per claimant. Subsequent claim forms from people at the same address without receipts were to be rejected. The no-receipt restriction therefore was not simply a separate $20 allowance for every household member.
Claims had to be timely and approved by the administrator. Claimants had to provide identifying information, report qualifying purchases and declare that their information was true and correct to the best of their memory and understanding. The administrator could reject materially noncompliant, late or fraudulent claims.
The agreement also required proportional—or pro rata—adjustments if approved claims exceeded or fell short of the money available for consumers. Payments could decrease or increase, with any increase capped at twice the claimed amount. Its stated upper limits were $500 for the receipt-supported maximum and $40 for the no-receipt maximum. These were contractual adjustment limits, not evidence of checks actually issued.
For example, 12 qualifying cans produced a $12 base claim before validation and any proportional adjustment. A qualifying 14-serving powder package produced a $5 base claim. Neither calculation establishes what a particular claimant ultimately received.
The $7.8 million fund was not entirely reserved for consumer checks. The judgment approved $2.6 million in attorneys’ fees, $242,294.01 in litigation costs and $20,000 in representative service awards.
In its quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2023, Celsius reported that it paid the balance of the $7.8 million to the Settlement Administrator on April 17, 2023. That is the company’s account of funding the settlement, not confirmation that consumers received or cashed checks or that administration was completed. The authenticated final judgment was filed April 5, 2023; the company report’s reference to approval on March 31 does not replace that judgment date.
What Labeling Changes Were Required?
The approved settlement required revised labeling that omitted the “no preservatives” representation, changed other marketing statements and adopted a nutrition facts panel instead of a dietary supplement label. Once Celsius adopted the revised labeling, it was not to produce products bearing the challenged prior labeling. The agreement set the internal label-change deadline at six months after issuance of the final-approval order.
The judgment required at least three years of revised labeling, referring to adoption and first shipment of products bearing it. During the restricted period, Celsius could change labels but could not restore the “no preservatives” representation or other removed claims unless a formulation change warranted the particular claim. Between the defined label-change deadline and end date, advertising also could not contradict the revised labeling or contain removed representations.
The judgment expressly provided that the requirement would not bind a successor owner following a change in majority ownership. These were conditions of the negotiated relief, not an unconditional permanent ban. April 5, 2023 alone does not establish the restricted period’s actual start or end, and the records substantiated here do not establish whether those restrictions remained in force in October 2026.
Consumer Impact and What Happens Next
For someone asking whether they can claim money now, the substantiated deadline is February 13, 2023. The records reviewed here do not establish a reopened claims process or a current payment schedule. This article does not provide an active claims portal.
For someone who previously filed, the benefit formula explains how a historical claim was calculated, but it does not resolve whether that claim was approved, adjusted, paid or cashed. A claim cap, an approved settlement and an individual payment are different things.
The judgment required a later Notice of Completion of Duties after payments and administration were substantially complete. That notice was to report claims, verification results, administration costs and remaining charitable distributions. The requirement to file it is not proof that it was later filed or that payments were completed.
The settlement’s release also depended on the agreement’s defined Effective Date. That definition turns on judgment finality and appeal-related conditions; the April 5 filing date should not automatically be substituted for it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Celsius admit misleading consumers?
No. The judgment expressly disclaims an admission of wrongdoing and a finding validating the allegations.
Did consumers need receipts?
The agreement permitted approved claims without receipts, subject to a $20 base cap and the same-address restriction. Receipt-supported claims had a $250 base cap. Both tiers remained subject to the agreement’s proportional-adjustment rules.
Was the settlement nationwide?
Yes. The judgment’s class definition covered qualifying U.S. purchases, subject to its purchase period, consumption-purpose requirements and exclusions.
Did every customer receive $250?
No such conclusion follows from the terms. That was the receipt-tier base cap, not a flat award. Purchases, claim approval and proportional adjustments affected the contractual calculation; actual individual payments are not established here.
Does the 2026 information establish that settlement payments finished?
No. The April 2023 judgment and the company’s reported payment to the administrator do not establish completed consumer distributions. Later administrative completion remains unverified as of October 27, 2026; that does not mean no later records or proceedings exist.
Separate Celsius Disputes Described in 2026
The Hezi/Prescod “No Preservatives” settlement should not be confused with two other types of litigation described in Celsius’s August 6, 2026 quarterly report. The following procedural accounts are attributed to the company’s disclosure, not independently authenticated court rulings or findings by the SEC.
California social-media endorsement consumer case. Celsius reported that a proposed nationwide consumer class action filed January 22, 2025 challenged alleged financial relationships between Celsius and individuals promoting its products on social media. According to the report, the court dismissed the action with leave to amend on June 17, 2026, and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 8, 2026. Thus, the reported dismissal was not an established final end to the dispute. The report said Celsius intended to seek dismissal of the amended pleading. It does not establish a consumer settlement or claim window, and subsequent developments are unverified here.
Flo Rida endorsement and royalty litigation. This is a commercial contract dispute, not the consumer-labeling settlement. Celsius’s August 6 report stated that an appellate court had affirmed liability but vacated the original damages amount in December 2024. It reported a new April 17, 2026 judgment for $101.1 million, including prejudgment interest, and said Celsius had appealed. The report also described a separate royalty lawsuit by the same plaintiffs, with argument on a dismissal motion held July 15, 2026. Those disclosed amounts and proceedings do not create benefits for purchasers under the $7.8 million Hezi/Prescod settlement. Outcomes after the August 6 report are not established here.
Conclusion
The documented celsius drink lawsuit outcome was a court-approved labeling settlement, not a finding of wrongdoing. Its historical terms covered specified Celsius drinks and powders, with purchase-based cash benefits, receipt and no-receipt limits, household-related restrictions and possible proportional adjustments. Claims were due February 13, 2023. The approved terms explain the settlement; they do not prove individual payouts or establish a current opportunity to claim.