Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Lawsuit, Were You Affected? — Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC, No. 1:26-cv-2689

Bloom Nu LLC is facing a class action — Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC, No. 1:26-cv-2689 — over claims that its sparkling energy drinks, labeled “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame,” actually contain manufactured citric acid. If you bought Bloom Sparkling Energy because the can promised no artificial flavors, the lawsuit says that promise wasn’t accurate. Here’s what the case actually claims, and what it means for you.

Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Lawsuit — Key Facts

Lawsuit Filed	May 5, 2026
Defendant	Bloom Nu LLC
Alleged Harm	Sparkling energy drinks labeled “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” allegedly contain manufactured citric acid
Law Alleged	New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
Who Is Affected	Purchasers of Bloom Sparkling Energy drinks, primarily in New York
Court & Case Number	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York — No. 1:26-cv-2689
Current Stage	Newly filed; Bloom Nu has not yet formally responded in court
Lead Plaintiff Deadline	UNVERIFIED — not reported in available court coverage
Settlement Status	No settlement. Active proposed class action
Last Updated	September 2, 2026

Who Is Bloom Nu and Why Are They Being Sued Over Citric Acid?

Bloom Nu built its sparkling energy drink line around clean-label marketing, printing “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” directly on cans sold to health-conscious buyers willing to pay more for that promise. Citric acid appears on the ingredient list of Bloom Sparkling Energy, and while citric acid occurs naturally in citrus fruit, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has said it isn’t commercially feasible to extract it that way at scale. The citric acid actually used in packaged drinks, plaintiff Bianca Marinelli’s complaint alleges, is produced through industrial fermentation using the mold Aspergillus niger, not squeezed from lemons.

What Did Bloom Nu Do to Sparkling Energy Drink Buyers?

Marinelli’s complaint alleges Bloom Nu’s “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” claim is featured prominently on packaging specifically to draw in health-conscious shoppers who want to avoid artificial ingredients. The lawsuit argues that manufactured citric acid, despite technically originating from a natural microorganism, isn’t the kind of “natural flavor” a reasonable consumer pictures when reading a “no artificial flavors” label. New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 make it illegal to advertise a product in New York using a materially misleading claim, whether or not the seller intended to deceive anyone.

This isn’t an isolated theory. Bloom Nu is one of several energy drink and beverage makers to face nearly the same claim this year. ZOA Energy settled a similar citric-acid labeling case for $3 million after being accused of falsely claiming “0 Preservatives,” and Celsius Holdings settled a nearly identical dispute over citric acid on its own energy drinks. If you’ve followed either of those cases, this one will look familiar.

If you bought Bloom Sparkling Energy specifically because the can said no artificial flavors, the lawsuit is arguing you didn’t get what you paid for.

Are You Part of the Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Lawsuit?

Here’s exactly how to know if the Bloom Nu lawsuit includes you.

• Anyone who purchased Bloom Sparkling Energy drinks in New York during the applicable statute of limitations period
• Shoppers who chose Bloom over competitors specifically because of its “no artificial flavors” claim
• Health-conscious buyers who paid a premium price expecting a clean-label ingredient list
• People who still have receipts, loyalty account purchase records, or cans on hand

You likely don’t qualify if you never purchased Bloom Sparkling Energy, or if your purchases happened outside New York, since the claims center on New York consumer protection law specifically.

Bloom Nu Buyers Outside New York — Are You Still Covered?

Marinelli’s complaint is built around New York General Business Law, which generally protects transactions that happened in New York. UNVERIFIED — whether the complaint also seeks a nationwide or multistate class hasn’t surfaced in available court coverage. Buyers outside New York should watch for a possible companion filing in their own state, since similar citric acid suits against other beverage brands have often been filed state by state rather than as one nationwide case.

Not sure if you qualify for the Bloom Nu sparkling energy drink lawsuit? A free consultation with a consumer fraud attorney can help you understand your options while the case is still in its early stages.

What Is the Bloom Nu Lawsuit Asking the Court to Award?

Marinelli’s complaint seeks class certification, damages, and a court order requiring Bloom Nu to change how it labels and markets its sparkling energy drinks. No money yet. No claim form yet.

What Could Bloom Nu Buyers Receive If This Settles?

It’s too early to put a number on it, but similar cases give a rough sense of scale. Celsius Holdings’ comparable citric acid lawsuit resulted in a settlement paying eligible claimants up to $250, while ZOA Energy’s settlement capped payouts at $150 per person. Nothing guarantees Bloom Nu’s case follows either path, or settles at all.

That range is a starting point, not a promise. The size of any eventual Bloom Nu payout would depend on how many people file claims and how the case is negotiated.

What Should Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Buyers Do Right Now?

1. Don’t file anything yet. This is a proposed class action, not a sign-up sheet.
2. Save receipts, loyalty app purchase history, or photos of cans showing the “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” label.
3. Note roughly how many cans or cases you bought and over what period, since payouts in similar cases scale with purchase volume.
4. Track the lead plaintiff deadline. UNVERIFIED — none reported yet, but it typically sets who directs the case.
5. Monitor the docket for Case No. 1:26-cv-2689, E.D.N.Y.
6. If you’re outside New York, watch for a parallel case in your state before assuming you’re excluded entirely.

Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Lawsuit — Full Timeline

Milestone	Date
Bloom Sparkling Energy launches with “no artificial flavors” labeling	UNVERIFIED — exact launch date not confirmed
Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC filed	May 5, 2026
Court	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Next scheduled hearing	UNVERIFIED — not yet scheduled
Expected resolution	UNVERIFIED — case newly filed

Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink — Frequently Asked Questions, No. 1:26-cv-2689

Is there a class action lawsuit against Bloom Nu right now?

 Yes. Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC, No. 1:26-cv-2689, was filed May 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging Bloom Nu’s “no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame” labeling misrepresents its use of manufactured citric acid.

Do I need to do anything right now to be part of the Bloom Nu lawsuit? 

No. This is a proposed class action, and nobody has signed up yet. If a class of New York purchasers gets certified later, you generally won’t need to have filed anything to be automatically included.

When will the Bloom Nu case settle?

 There’s no timeline yet. The case was filed May 5, 2026, and Bloom Nu hasn’t formally responded in court. Similar citric acid cases against other beverage brands have taken months to over a year to resolve.

Can I file my own lawsuit against Bloom Nu instead of joining the class? 

You can, though it’s worth checking whether a class gets certified first, since an individual case over a relatively small purchase amount is rarely worth pursuing alone. Talk to a consumer fraud attorney about your options.

How will I find out if the Bloom Nu lawsuit settles? 

Consumer legal news outlets typically cover settlements once approved, and a claims administrator site usually follows. Watch the docket for Case No. 1:26-cv-2689.

What does “lead plaintiff” mean for the Bloom Nu case and why does the deadline matter?

 A lead plaintiff is the named plaintiff, currently Bianca Marinelli, who directs the litigation on the class’s behalf. UNVERIFIED — no lead plaintiff deadline has been reported for this case as of this writing.

What specific laws does Bloom Nu allegedly violate? 

The complaint alleges violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising in consumer transactions.

How much could Bloom Nu buyers get if this case settles? 

UNVERIFIED — no dollar figure has been proposed for this case specifically. Comparable citric acid settlements against Celsius and ZOA Energy paid up to $250 and $150 per claimant respectively, though any Bloom Nu payout would depend on class size and negotiated terms.

Sources Used in This Bloom Nu Sparkling Energy Drink Article

• Law360 — “Bloom Nu Energy Drinks Have Artificial Ingredients, Suit Says,” May 6, 2026: https://www.law360.com/articles/2474387/bloom-nu-energy-drinks-have-artificial-ingredients-suit-says
• Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP — “The Ad Standard: Monthly Update,” June 2026 (case citation: Marinelli v. Bloom Nu LLC, No. 1:26-cv-2689, E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2026): https://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/Publications/theadstandard_06_05_26
• Juris Law Group — Class Actions Lawsuits Newsletter, May 2026: https://jurislawgroup.com/class-actions-newsletter-food-beverage-may-2026/
• Bloom Nu — product labeling, Sparkling Energy Drinks page: https://bloomnu.com/products/sparkling-energy

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against Law360 and independent law firm case-tracking publications on September 2, 2026. Last Updated: September 2, 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and individual circumstances differ. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.