Families of Two Deceased Customers Sue Panera Bread Over Highly Caffeinated Charged Lemonade, All Four Lawsuits Now Settled

Panera Bread faced four civil lawsuits — including two wrongful death claims — alleging that its Charged Lemonade beverage contained dangerously high levels of caffeine that the company failed to adequately disclose to consumers. All four cases have now been resolved: Panera settled the first lawsuit in October 2024 and settled the remaining three in July 2025, with court records showing the final three cases dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled in the same courts. The litigation triggered a series of label changes, operational modifications, and ultimately the nationwide removal of the Charged Lemonade from Panera’s menu.

Quick Case Snapshot

Background: What Is Panera Charged Lemonade?

Panera’s Charged Lemonade was advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage and was offered side-by-side with all of Panera’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks at the restaurant’s self-serve beverage stations.

A 30-ounce large Charged Lemonade contained 390 milligrams of caffeine — more caffeine than any size of Panera’s dark roast coffee — along with guarana extract, another stimulant, and the equivalent of nearly 30 teaspoons of sugar.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that most healthy adults can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day. For individuals with underlying cardiovascular conditions, that threshold can be significantly lower.

What the Lawsuits Allege

Case 1: Sarah Katz (Death — September 2022)

The legal complaint was filed on behalf of the parents of Sarah Katz, 21, a University of Pennsylvania student who had taught CPR in underserved communities and had been a research assistant at a children’s hospital.

Katz was diagnosed with long QT syndrome type 1 as a child, a rare disorder of the heart’s electrical system that can lead to dangerous heart rhythms and sudden cardiac arrest. According to her attorney, Katz was very vigilant about her heart condition, managed it with medication, attended her cardiac appointments, and followed her doctor’s advice. Her doctors had specifically recommended she avoid energy drinks.

The complaint alleged she bought a Charged Lemonade from a Panera restaurant in September 2022, reasonably believing it was a traditional lemonade or electrolyte sports drink containing a safe amount of caffeine. She suffered cardiac arrest hours later, had a second cardiac arrest episode at a nearby hospital, and passed away.

The wrongful death lawsuit alleged that the Charged Lemonade had been “offered side-by-side with all of Panera’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks” and was advertised as a “plant-based and clean” beverage. The complaint noted Katz had recently purchased a Panera Unlimited Sip Club membership — a monthly subscription offering unlimited free drink refills — approximately ten days before her death.

Case 2: Dennis Brown (Death — October 2023)

Dennis Brown of Fleming Island, Florida, drank three of the drinks — unknowingly consuming high levels of caffeine — at a local Panera on October 9 before suffering a fatal cardiac arrest while walking home.

Brown suffered from a chromosomal deficiency disorder, developmental delay, ADHD, and high blood pressure, yet lived on his own and worked as a grocery store employee for nearly 17 years. He did not consume energy drinks and believed the Charged Lemonade was safe since it was not advertised as such.

The lawsuit alleged that Panera “knew or should have known” that the Charged Lemonade could pose risks, particularly to children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and individuals sensitive to caffeine. The complaint further noted that the drink posed an added risk because it was mixed at individual store locations by employees, meaning its caffeine content was not strictly controlled and varied between servings.

Case 3: Lauren Skerritt (Permanent Cardiac Injury)

A third lawsuit filed in mid-January 2024 alleged that, since consuming two and a half Charged Lemonades over the course of one day in April 2023, a 28-year-old woman from Rhode Island with no underlying health conditions now experiences instances of irregularly fast heart palpitations and takes regular medication to regulate her heartbeat.

Case 4: Luke Adams (Resuscitation / Cardiac Emergency)

Luke Adams, a Pennsylvania teenager, filed a lawsuit alleging he had to be resuscitated hours after he drank a Charged Lemonade. The complaint alleged permanent cardiac harm resulting from the beverage.

Core Legal Theory Across All Four Cases

The lawsuits asserted that Panera’s Charged Lemonade was served side-by-side with drinks containing no caffeine or minimal caffeine, that it was not advertised as an energy drink, and that the product did not carry adequate warnings about its caffeine content.

The complaints argued that this marketing was “especially dangerous to a vulnerable population, children and adults who would reasonably believe this product was lemonade and safe for consumption.”

Panera’s Response

Panera expressed sympathy for the Brown family but disputed any link between his death and its caffeinated drinks, stating: “Based on our investigation, we believe his unfortunate passing was not caused by one of the company’s products. We view this lawsuit, which was filed by the same law firm as the previous claim, to be equally without merit. Panera stands firmly by the safety of our products.”

Panera denied wrongdoing in court documents throughout the litigation.

Despite its denials, Panera took a series of incremental steps in response to the lawsuits:

• Following the Katz lawsuit, Panera moved the Charged Lemonade behind the counter so it was no longer self-serve and updated its nutrition information to reflect how much caffeine was in the drink when served with ice.
• Panera also added prominent signs cautioning that Charged Lemonade contained caffeine, should be consumed in moderation, and was not recommended for children, people sensitive to caffeine, pregnant or nursing women.
• In May 2024, Panera announced it was discontinuing the entire Charged Sips line nationwide, describing the move as part of a “recent menu transformation.” The company declined to state whether the removal was directly tied to the lawsuits or health concerns.

Legal Context

Failure to Warn and Products Liability

The Panera cases centered on a well-established area of products liability law: the duty to warn. Under this doctrine, a manufacturer or seller of a product that poses foreseeable risks must provide consumers with adequate warning of those risks, particularly when the hazard is not obvious. The lawsuits argued that positioning Charged Lemonade next to standard beverages — without prominent caffeine warnings — failed to put consumers on notice of the drink’s energy-drink-level caffeine content.

FDA Regulatory Gap

Plaintiffs’ attorney Elizabeth Crawford noted at the time of filing that the family hoped to raise awareness about the drink’s contents, have it removed from Panera’s shelves, and urge the FDA to better regulate energy drinks. Manufacturers are currently allowed to include unlimited amounts of caffeine in energy drinks by classifying them as supplements, according to Crawford.

The FDA issued a statement saying it was “saddened to hear of the passing of another consumer” and that it “takes seriously reports of illnesses or injury from regulated products,” while monitoring the marketplace and declining to comment further on pending litigation.

Industry Implications

Crisis PR expert James Haggerty noted that completely removing the drink from the menu could come across as an implied admission that something was wrong with it in the first place, but that the cost-benefit analysis ultimately weighed toward action. The Panera cases have drawn renewed industry attention to how restaurants and food-service chains label and position high-caffeine beverages that do not fall clearly within the regulatory framework governing traditional energy drinks.

Settlement and Resolution

Panera settled the Katz family lawsuit in October 2024, days before a trial was scheduled to begin, with jury selection slated to occur later that week. The terms of the Katz settlement were not publicly disclosed.

Panera settled the three remaining lawsuits in July 2025. Plaintiffs’ attorney Elizabeth Crawford confirmed that “the matters have all been resolved” but declined to comment further. Panera also confirmed the legal developments but declined to answer additional questions. Court records showed the remaining three lawsuits were listed as dismissed with prejudice, meaning the cases cannot be refiled again in the same courts.

The financial terms of all four settlements remain confidential.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Panera Charged Lemonade lawsuit about? 

Four civil lawsuits alleged that Panera’s Charged Lemonade was a dangerously high-caffeine beverage that Panera failed to adequately label or warn consumers about. At least two consumer deaths were linked to excessive levels of caffeine in the drinks, and two additional plaintiffs alleged permanent cardiac injuries. All four cases have now been settled.

How much caffeine did the Charged Lemonade contain? 

A 30-ounce large Charged Lemonade contained 390 milligrams of caffeine — more than any size of Panera’s dark roast coffee — along with guarana extract and the equivalent of nearly 30 teaspoons of sugar. That exceeds the combined caffeine levels of standard cans of Red Bull and Monster energy drinks. The FDA’s recommended daily limit for healthy adults is 400 milligrams.

Is Panera still selling Charged Lemonade? 

No. Panera removed the Charged Lemonade from its stores nationwide in May 2024, which the company described as part of a “recent menu transformation.”

Did Panera admit wrongdoing? 

No. Panera denied wrongdoing in court documents throughout the litigation. All four cases were settled confidentially, and settlements do not constitute admissions of liability.

Were the settlement amounts made public? 

No. The Katz family’s attorney confirmed the matter was resolved but said she could not provide any details about the settlement. The terms of all four settlements remain confidential.

Could this case set a regulatory precedeant? 

The cases renewed calls for the FDA to more clearly regulate high-caffeine beverages sold through food-service chains. Plaintiffs’ attorney Crawford urged the FDA to better regulate energy drinks, noting that manufacturers can currently include unlimited amounts of caffeine in beverages by classifying them as supplements. Whether formal regulatory action will follow remains to be seen.

Last Updated: March 4, 2026. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise in court. Settlement terms described herein are based on publicly available information; confidential settlement terms are not reflected.

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