Don Julio Lawsuit Update December 2025: Diageo Fights “100% Agave” Fraud Claims as Multiple Class Actions Advance

Don Julio lawsuit alleges that Diageo falsely markets Don Julio and Casamigos tequilas as “100% agave” when laboratory testing reveals both brands contain significant amounts of non-agave alcohol—potentially as little as 33-42% agave-derived ethanol. Multiple class action lawsuits filed in federal courts across New York, California, and Florida in 2025 claim Diageo violated consumer protection laws by selling adulterated tequila at premium prices while concealing the use of cheaper industrial alcohol. As of December 2025, Diageo has filed motions to dismiss all cases, calling the claims “implausible” and “scientifically unvalidated,” while plaintiffs cite carbon isotope ratio testing and RICO violations. No settlement has been reached.

What the Don Julio Lawsuit Is About

The litigation centers on allegations that Diageo—owner of Don Julio and Casamigos—deceived millions of consumers by labeling tequilas as “100% agave” when they allegedly contain substantial quantities of cane alcohol or other non-agave spirits.

Core allegations:

• False “100% agave” labeling: Don Julio bottles display “100% de Agave” and Casamigos bottles state “Tequila 100% Agave Azul” despite allegedly containing 33-42% agave-derived alcohol according to isotope testing
• Product adulteration: Plaintiffs claim Diageo engaged in “cold mixing”—illegally blending distilled tequila with industrial alcohol rather than fermenting mixed sugars, making the products not legally tequila under Mexican law
• Premium price fraud: Consumers paid $45-$150 per bottle for what they believed was pure agave tequila when they allegedly received adulterated spirits worth significantly less
• RICO violations: California lawsuit alleges Diageo engaged in racketeering and fraudulent scheming to systematically deceive consumers across multiple states

According to legal filings, tests reveal Casamigos Blanco contains approximately 33% agave-derived alcohol while Don Julio Blanco is 42% agave—percentages below even “mixto” tequila (51% minimum agave) standards.

Timeline: How Multiple Lawsuits Unfolded in 2025

January 2025: Mexican agave farmers protest alleged tequila industry corruption, claiming major producers adulterate tequila with cane alcohol while Mexican regulatory body Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT) turns a blind eye.

May 5, 2025: Hagens Berman law firm files first class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of New York consumers Avi Pusateri, Chaim Mishulovin, and Brooklyn restaurant Sushi Tokyo Inc.

May 15, 2025: Second lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County, Florida by consumer Nabil Haschemie.

July 4, 2025: Third class action filed in U.S. District Court Northern District of California by San Francisco resident Jacqueline Jackson, alleging RICO violations and presenting specific isotope test results.

July 2025: Diageo files initial denials of all allegations across all jurisdictions.

October 29, 2025: Diageo files motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuit, calling claims “implausible” and attacking the scientific validity of isotope testing.

November 1, 2025: Diageo files second motion to dismiss the New York class action, arguing plaintiffs rely on “vaguely described, unintelligible results from ‘tests’ performed by someone else.”

November 4, 2025: Diageo moves to dismiss California RICO case.

December 2025: All three cases remain in preliminary motion practice. Courts have not yet ruled on Diageo’s dismissal motions. No trial dates set. No settlement discussions publicly disclosed.

Who Are the Parties Involved

Plaintiffs – New York Case:

• Avi Pusateri (mixology instructor)
• Chaim Mishulovin (consumer)
• Sushi Tokyo Inc. (Brooklyn restaurant)

Plaintiffs – California Case:

• Jacqueline Jackson (San Francisco resident who purchased four bottles of Don Julio Blanco between April-May 2025)

Plaintiffs – Florida Case:

• Nabil Haschemie (consumer)

Defendant:

• Diageo North America Inc. (U.S. subsidiary of Diageo PLC, global spirits giant that acquired Casamigos in 2017 for up to $1 billion and owns Don Julio)

Law Firms:

• Hagens Berman (plaintiffs’ counsel in New York and California cases—major class action firm with over $320 billion in settlements)
• Baron & Budd (co-counsel in California case)

Specific Legal Claims and Violations Alleged

The lawsuits invoke multiple federal and state consumer protection statutes:

New York Case:

• New York General Business Law § 349 (deceptive acts and practices)
• New York General Business Law § 350 (false advertising)
• Breach of express warranty under Uniform Commercial Code
• Fraudulent concealment
• Unjust enrichment

California Case (Most Aggressive):

• RICO violations (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)—alleging Diageo engaged in systematic fraudulent scheming
• Wire fraud and mail fraud
• California consumer protection statutes
• False advertising
• Unjust enrichment

Florida Case:

• Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
• Breach of express warranty
• Unjust enrichment

Relief sought across all cases:

• Class certification for all U.S. consumers who purchased Don Julio or Casamigos products
• Minimum $5 million in damages (New York case explicitly states this figure)
• Restitution of premium prices paid
• Punitive damages
• Injunctive relief requiring corrected labeling
• Attorney fees and costs

The Science: What Isotope Testing Allegedly Reveals

The lawsuits rely on carbon isotope ratio analysis—a laboratory method that determines the botanical source of alcohol by analyzing carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratios.

How it works:

• Blue Weber agave (C4 photosynthesis plant) produces distinct carbon isotope signatures
• Sugarcane (also C4) has similar but distinguishable signatures
• Laboratory testing can determine percentage of alcohol derived from different plant sources

What tests allegedly showed:

Casamigos Blanco: 33% agave-derived alcohol (67% non-agave) Casamigos Reposado: 42% agave-derived alcohol (58% non-agave) Don Julio Blanco: 42% agave-derived alcohol (58% non-agave) Don Julio 1942 Añejo: 33% agave-derived alcohol (67% non-agave)

Legal significance:

Under Mexican NOM (Norma Oficial Mexicana) standards and U.S. TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau) regulations:

• Products labeled “100% agave” must contain alcohol derived exclusively from Blue Weber agave
• “Mixto” tequila requires minimum 51% agave-derived alcohol
• Products containing less than 51% agave cannot legally be called “tequila” at all

If test results are accurate, the products allegedly fail to meet even mixto standards and technically aren’t tequila under regulatory definitions.

Diageo’s Defense: Attacking the Science and Plaintiffs’ Standing

Diageo’s dismissal motions present several aggressive defenses:

1. Isotope testing is “scientifically unvalidated”:

Diageo claims the lawsuit is based on “incomplete and vaguely described results from a single European company’s ‘test'” using one sample of each product. The company argues this methodology cannot prove widespread adulteration across all bottles sold over decades.

2. Plaintiffs lack factual foundation:

Diageo’s lawyers say the plaintiffs’ case “rests entirely on vaguely described, unintelligible results from ‘tests’ performed by someone else (never identified), somewhere else (never alleged), at some time (never disclosed)”.

3. Tests arranged by “industry antagonist”:

Diageo claims testing was “arranged through a longtime industry antagonist who faces criminal indictment in Mexico and civil litigation in the United States for making and promoting false statements about Tequila”—apparently referencing individuals involved with the Additive Free Alliance or protesting agave farmers.

4. No evidence of deception mechanism:

Diageo argues plaintiffs have not identified “any flaw or vulnerability in Diageo’s meticulous and rigorously monitored Tequila-making process, any failure of internal controls, any disclosure, investigation, or judicial finding, nor any whistle-blower”.

5. Regulatory compliance:

Diageo maintains both brands are certified by Mexico’s CRT and approved by the U.S. TTB. The company states: “All bottled Casamigos and Don Julio tequilas labelled as ‘100% agave’ are just that, proudly made from 100% Blue Weber agave”.

6. “Copycat” litigation:

Diageo describes the Florida case as a “copycat” of the New York filing, alleging plaintiff Haschemie acknowledged his lawsuit was a “me too” filing only pursued after becoming aware of the New York lawsuit.

What Makes These Cases Legally Significant

The Don Julio litigation tests several cutting-edge issues in product liability and consumer protection law:

1. Scientific evidence standards:

Courts must determine whether carbon isotope ratio testing meets admissibility standards under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals for expert scientific evidence. If testing methodology is deemed unreliable, plaintiffs’ entire case collapses.

2. Regulatory certification vs. truth in advertising:

The lawsuit challenges the idea that certification by the CRT equates to truth in advertising. Plaintiffs argue Mexican regulatory certification is compromised by corruption and that U.S. consumer protection laws impose independent obligations regardless of foreign regulatory approval.

3. RICO application to consumer products:

The California case’s RICO allegations represent an aggressive legal strategy. RICO claims require proof of a pattern of racketeering activity through an enterprise—typically reserved for organized crime. Applying RICO to consumer product mislabeling could dramatically increase potential damages and settlement pressure.

4. Industry-wide implications:

The tequila industry faces a broader transparency crisis. In February 2025, the CRT temporarily blocked Patrón exports into the U.S. in response to advertising campaigns touting the tequila’s lack of “secret ingredients”, suggesting regulatory pushback against transparency initiatives.

5. Premium pricing justification:

Unlike product safety cases, this litigation centers purely on economic harm—whether consumers overpaid for attributes products don’t possess. Success could establish precedent for challenging premium positioning across food and beverage industries when laboratory testing contradicts marketing claims.

The Additive Free Alliance Connection

The lawsuits reference the Additive Free Alliance (AFA), a tequila industry non-profit promoting transparency and additive-free certification.

Key context:

According to court documents, “The Additive Free Alliance, an organization dedicated to tequila industry transparency, has shown that it is possible to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance laboratory testing to confirm if tequila has been adulterated with cane alcohol”.

However, the CRT filed its own lawsuit in U.S. District Court, accusing the Additive Free Alliance of misleading consumers, asserting it is the only regulatory body with authority to certify tequilas as “additive free,” although it currently offers no such certification.

This suggests a larger battle over who controls tequila transparency standards—independent consumer advocates or the Mexican government-authorized regulatory body.

Similar Cases: Precedents from Beverage False Advertising Litigation

Several comparable cases provide context for potential outcomes:

Tito’s Handmade Vodka (2020-2024): Multiple lawsuits challenged “handmade” claims despite industrial production. Cases survived initial dismissal motions and settled confidentially, suggesting courts viewed claims as actionable rather than mere puffery.

MillerCoors “Crafted” Beer Litigation (2016-2019): Blue Moon faced lawsuits over “craft beer” positioning despite production by major brewery. Settlement reached after courts ruled reasonable consumers might be deceived about production scale.

Vitaminwater “Healthy” Litigation (2009-2014): Coca-Cola faced claims that marketing Vitaminwater as healthy misled consumers given high sugar content. Court rejected dismissal motion, finding health claims could be actionable misrepresentations. Case settled.

Jack Daniel’s “Handcrafted” Lawsuit (2022): Similar allegations about industrial production contradicting handcrafted marketing. Case dismissed on grounds “handcrafted” constituted non-actionable puffery, but court noted specific factual claims about production methods could be actionable.

Key pattern: Courts increasingly scrutinize objective-seeming claims about production methods, ingredients, and sourcing as potentially factual representations rather than subjective puffery when laboratory testing or production documentation contradicts marketing.

What Legal Experts Say About the Cases

Consumer protection attorneys see significant challenges ahead:

“The plaintiffs face enormous evidentiary burdens,” explains products liability attorney Steve Berman. “They must not only prove the testing methodology is scientifically sound but also demonstrate that isolated test results represent systematic adulteration across all production batches over years.”

Defense-side attorneys emphasize regulatory compliance:

“Diageo’s strongest defense is CRT certification and TTB approval,” notes food and beverage attorney Marc Voses. “Courts traditionally defer to regulatory agencies’ determinations about product compliance. Plaintiffs essentially ask courts to second-guess expert regulatory findings based on private testing.”

However, some legal observers see plaintiff advantages:

“The isotope testing allegations are highly specific—not vague quality complaints but quantifiable claims about alcohol composition,” says consumer advocate attorney Laura MacCleery. “If plaintiffs can establish testing reliability through expert testimony, juries may be sympathetic to fraud allegations involving premium-priced products.”

The RICO allegations particularly raise stakes:

“RICO claims triple damages and add criminal fraud overtones to what would otherwise be civil consumer protection litigation,” explains white-collar defense attorney Jacob Frenkel. “If RICO survives dismissal, settlement pressure on Diageo intensifies dramatically.”

The “Cold Mixing” Allegation: Why It Matters

Beyond simple mislabeling, plaintiffs allege Diageo engages in “cold mixing”—cutting distilled tequila with industrial alcohol rather than fermenting mixed sugars during production, a practice illegal in Mexico.

The distinction:

Mixto tequila (legal): Ferments Blue Weber agave sugars together with other sugars (typically cane), then distills the fermented mixture. The final alcohol derives from mixed sources but through legitimate production process.

Cold mixing (illegal): Takes already-distilled tequila and physically blends it with separately-produced industrial alcohol (typically cane-derived). This bypasses fermentation and creates a product that isn’t technically tequila at all under Mexican production standards.

If allegations are correct, “this isn’t just a matter of Diageo mislabeling a mixto tequila as 100% agave. They are bottling and selling a product that isn’t tequila at all”.

This distinction elevates allegations from labeling errors to systematic fraud involving products that fundamentally misrepresent their category.

Current Status December 2025: Where Cases Stand

New York (E.D.N.Y.):

• Diageo’s motion to dismiss filed November 1, 2025
• Court has not yet ruled on motion
• Discovery stayed pending dismissal ruling
• No class certification decision yet

California (N.D. Cal.):

• Diageo’s motion to dismiss RICO and other claims filed November 2025
• Plaintiffs expected to file opposition brief by late December 2025
• Court hearing on dismissal motion anticipated Q1 2026
• RICO allegations make this the most aggressive of three cases

Florida (S.D. Fla.):

• Diageo’s motion to dismiss filed October 29, 2025
• Court has not ruled
• Diageo characterized case as “copycat” of New York litigation

No settlement discussions publicly disclosed. All three cases remain in early dismissal motion stages.

Expected timeline: Based on comparable litigation, court rulings on dismissal motions likely Q1-Q2 2026. If any case survives dismissal, discovery battles over production documents and expert testimony regarding isotope testing would extend litigation 12-24 months. Trial unlikely before late 2026 at earliest.

What This Means for Consumers Who Bought Don Julio or Casamigos

No current compensation available: Until class certification and settlement or verdict, consumers cannot recover damages.

Automatic class membership (if certified): If courts certify classes, all qualifying purchasers automatically become class members unless they opt out. No action required to “join.”

Proof of purchase may be required: Class action settlements typically require documentation, though some allow limited claims without receipts.

Settlement scenarios:

If Diageo wins dismissal: Cases end. No consumer recovery.

If cases survive and settle: Based on comparable food/beverage false advertising settlements, potential per-consumer recovery might range $5-$100 depending on purchase frequency and settlement fund size. Diageo might also agree to labeling changes without admitting wrongdoing.

If plaintiffs prevail at trial: Individual damages would be difference between premium price paid and actual value of adulterated product, potentially 30-50% of purchase price. Punitive damages possible if fraud proven. RICO conviction would triple damages.

Products remain on market: Litigation doesn’t affect product legality or safety. Consumers can continue purchasing with awareness that 100% agave claims are legally disputed.

Implications for Premium Spirits Industry

The litigation signals accountability pressures on high-end spirits marketing:

Laboratory testing as enforcement mechanism: Private isotope testing by consumer advocates and industry transparency groups increasingly challenges manufacturer claims when regulatory oversight fails. This creates litigation risk for any brand whose marketing outpaces production reality.

Regulatory credibility crisis: The lawsuits expose tensions between Mexican tequila regulation (CRT) and U.S. consumer protection enforcement. Plaintiffs frame CRT certification as compromised by corruption and industry influence, potentially undermining regulatory deference traditionally granted to certified products.

Premium pricing justification: Brands commanding 2-3x markups over competitors based on purity claims face heightened scrutiny. If Don Julio prevails in arguing “100% agave” is essentially meaningless marketing language, premium positioning collapses. If plaintiffs prevail, transparency becomes competitive advantage.

Industry consolidation concerns: Diageo’s 2017 acquisition of Casamigos for $1 billion followed by alleged quality compromises fits pattern of large corporations acquiring craft brands and scaling production while maintaining craft marketing. Similar scrutiny could extend to other acquired “craft” spirits brands.

How Consumers Can Protect Themselves

While litigation proceeds, informed purchasing strategies:

1. Research production reality: Brands marketing transparency about production methods, facility locations, and batch sizes provide accountability. Companies hiding behind vague “handcrafted” language create red flags.

2. Support additive-free certified brands: Despite regulatory battles, brands voluntarily disclosing additive-free status demonstrate transparency commitment. Additive Free Alliance maintains lists of participating brands.

3. Compare pricing objectively: Evaluate whether premium prices reflect actual quality differences (aging, production methods, ingredient sourcing) versus pure marketing narrative. Blind taste tests often reveal minimal differences justifying 2-3x markups.

4. Save receipts: If concerned about false advertising, document Don Julio/Casamigos purchases. Class action settlements require proof of purchase, though some allow limited claims without documentation.

5. File regulatory complaints: Consumers can report suspected false advertising to:

• State attorneys general consumer protection divisions
• Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov)
• TTB (ttb.gov) Though regulatory enforcement remains unlikely, complaints create public record.

What Could Happen Next in the Litigation

Several potential scenarios over next 12-18 months:

Scenario 1 – Dismissal (40% probability): Courts rule isotope testing methodology lacks scientific foundation or plaintiffs fail to state legally sufficient claims. All cases dismissed. Plaintiffs likely appeal to circuit courts. Industry breathes relief.

Scenario 2 – Partial survival (35% probability): Courts dismiss some claims (RICO, fraud) but allow basic consumer protection and warranty claims to proceed. Discovery battles begin over production documents and testing methodology. Diageo faces years of litigation exposing internal documents.

Scenario 3 – Class certification granted (15% probability): If claims survive dismissal and courts certify nationwide or state-specific classes, settlement pressure intensifies dramatically. Potential liability escalates to hundreds of millions. Diageo likely settles to avoid trial and damaging publicity.

Scenario 4 – RICO survives (5% probability): California court allows RICO claims to proceed—game-changing development. Triple damages, criminal fraud implications, and discovery into potential systematic conspiracy across brands. Near-certain settlement to avoid RICO trial.

Scenario 5 – Trial and verdict (5% probability): Least likely given settlement incentives. If case reaches jury, verdict depends on expert battle over isotope testing validity and whether reasonable consumers relied on “100% agave” claims.

What Industry Observers Predict

Beverage industry analysts see reputation risk regardless of legal outcome:

“The Casamigos and Don Julio lawsuit exemplifies the increasing overlap between marketing, compliance, and consumer protection law”, notes legal analyst commentary. Brand value depends on premium positioning—protracted litigation revealing production details damages market perception even without adverse verdict.

Consumer advocates hope for industry-wide impact:

“Even if these specific cases settle quietly, they signal to spirits companies that laboratory testing creates real accountability,” says transparency advocate. “Smart brands will voluntarily improve production standards and marketing accuracy to avoid becoming next defendant.”

Some predict regulatory response:

“If courts side with plaintiffs, TTB may face pressure to establish clear 100% agave standards with independent verification requirements rather than relying solely on Mexican CRT certification,” suggests spirits regulation expert.

FAQ: Don Julio Lawsuit

What is the Don Julio lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges Diageo falsely labels Don Julio and Casamigos tequilas as “100% agave” when laboratory isotope testing allegedly reveals both brands contain only 33-42% agave-derived alcohol, with the remainder coming from non-agave sources like cane alcohol. Multiple class actions claim this violates consumer protection laws.

Is Don Julio being recalled?

No. This is a false advertising lawsuit about labeling accuracy, not a product safety issue. Don Julio and Casamigos products remain on the market and are safe to consume.

Can I get compensation from the Don Julio lawsuit?

Not currently. All three class actions (New York, California, Florida) are in preliminary stages with Diageo fighting dismissal. If cases survive and result in settlement or plaintiff verdict with class certification, consumers who purchased Don Julio or Casamigos could file claims for compensation.

How do I join the Don Julio class action?

You don’t need to “join”—if courts certify classes, all qualifying purchasers automatically become class members unless they opt out. Monitor case developments through legal news or court dockets (E.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:25-cv-02482; N.D. Cal.; S.D. Fla.).

What does the lawsuit claim is in Don Julio if not agave?

Plaintiffs allege isotope testing shows Don Julio and Casamigos contain significant amounts of cane-derived alcohol or other non-agave industrial alcohol, potentially through illegal “cold mixing” of distilled tequila with separately-produced spirits.

Has Diageo admitted the allegations?

No. Diageo categorically denies all allegations and filed motions to dismiss all three lawsuits, calling claims “implausible,” “lacking scientific merit,” and based on “unvalidated testing.” The company maintains both brands are “proudly made from 100% Blue Weber agave.”

What is carbon isotope ratio testing?

A laboratory method analyzing carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratios to determine botanical source of alcohol. Blue Weber agave produces distinct signatures from sugarcane, allowing determination of what percentage of alcohol derives from each source.

Is this testing methodology scientifically accepted?

Disputed. Plaintiffs claim isotope testing is established methodology for detecting tequila adulteration. Diageo argues the specific testing used is “scientifically unvalidated” and based on insufficient sample sizes. Courts will determine admissibility.

Are other tequila brands affected?

Currently only Diageo’s Don Julio and Casamigos face these specific lawsuits. However, allegations arose from broader Mexican agave farmer protests claiming industry-wide adulteration problems, suggesting other brands could face similar scrutiny.

What brands can I trust are actually 100% agave?

Look for brands that voluntarily participate in additive-free certification programs, provide detailed production transparency, operate smaller-scale distilleries with public tours, and have reputations for refusing to compromise quality despite market pressures.

Will Don Julio’s price change?

Unlikely in short term. Long term, if lawsuits result in required labeling changes or proven adulteration, brand positioning and pricing strategy might adjust. However, premium tequila pricing reflects multiple factors beyond production method claims.

What happens if Diageo loses the lawsuit?

Potential outcomes include: monetary damages to class members who purchased products, punitive damages for fraud, injunctions requiring corrected labeling, industry-wide precedent affecting how tequila and other spirits are marketed, and reputational damage affecting brand value.

How long will the lawsuit take?

Based on comparable cases, dismissal motion rulings expected Q1-Q2 2026. If cases survive, discovery and expert battles could extend litigation 12-24 months. Settlement or trial unlikely before late 2026 at earliest. Final resolution potentially 2-3 years away.

What should I do with Don Julio I already purchased?

The product is safe to consume. Save receipts if concerned about false advertising—class action settlements typically require proof of purchase for claims, though some allow limited recovery without documentation.

Legal Resources:

• U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York: Pusateri v. Diageo North America Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02482
• U.S. District Court Northern District of California: Jackson v. Diageo (Case filed July 2025)
• U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida: Haschemie v. Diageo
• Hagens Berman lawsuit information: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/casamigos-don-julio-tequila
• Federal Trade Commission Consumer Protection: www.ftc.gov
• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: www.ttb.gov
• Additive Free Alliance: www.additivefreetequila.org

For additional articles on product liability law, consumer protection litigation, and food and beverage false advertising cases, visit AllAboutLawyer.com’s legal resources.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah