> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/sourcebooks/business-law-i/contract-law-sales-contracts-and-warranties/warranties/bhotiwihok-v.-fairlife.md). # Bhotiwihok v. Fairlife [Case No. 2:25-cv-01650-ODW](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6209758946081538200\&hl=en\&as_sdt=6,50) (February 13, 2026) United States District Court, Central District of California **Bhotiwihok, et al.**\ **v.**\ **Fairlife, LLC, et al.** OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge. ## I. Introduction Three representative Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a putative class against Defendants Fairlife, Inc.; The Coca-Cola Company; and Select Milk Producers, Inc. In two motions, Defendants now move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Select Milk's Motion and GRANTS IN PART Fairlife and Coca-Cola's Motion. \[1] ## II. Background In 2014, Select Milk, a dairy cooperative, partnered with Coca-Cola to launch Fairlife, a company with an eponymous line of premium milk and milk products. \[3] In 2020, Coca-Cola acquired Select Milk's remaining shares of Fairlife and became Fairlife's sole owner. However, Select Milk retains operational control of Fairlife and continues to provide milk products for Fairlife. Fairlife promotes, and charges more for, high levels of environmental sustainability and animal care. For example, Fairlife bottles include the phrase "Recycle Me" on their labels and are stamped with a chasing arrow symbol, indicating recyclability. Fairlife also claims that its farms are "top in the industry for environmental sustainability." However, 0% of Fairlife bottles are recyclable. Moreover, the sustainability practices at Fairlife's farms cause disproportionate environmental damage. Fairlife also claims that it follows industry-leading animal care standards and has zero tolerance for abusive practices at farms supplying its milk. In this spirit, Fairlife designed a logo that symbolizes its commitment to animal care: However, successive independent investigations have uncovered horrendous animal abuse at farms supplying Fairlife's milk. In 2019, third-party Animal Recovery Mission, ARM, conducted an investigation at several Fairlife suppliers that revealed systemic animal cruelty and neglect. This investigation led to a consumer class action lawsuit and subsequent settlement involving Fairlife. ARM's investigations continued. In 2023, ARM investigated two farms—Windy Ridge and Windy Too—that continued to supply Fairlife. That investigation revealed rampant animal abuse and neglect, including "\[a]nimals kicked, beaten, and punched daily"; "\[c]ows slammed into and dragged by tractors and heavy machinery, clearly conscious and in distress"; \[c]ows trampled to death as part of \[the] milking process"; \[n]ewborn calves abandoned and left to die slowly in dark corners of barns and in piles of filth and feces"; and abandonment of cows in "death pens." In 2024, ARM investigated two other Fairlife suppliers, Butterfield and Rainbow Valley. This investigation revealed similar instances of animal cruelty and neglect, including "\[a]nimals hit in the face, genitals, and other sensitive areas with knives, screwdrivers, and shards of metal," and instances of "workers intentionally and frequently breaking tails of the cows . . . as apparent \`discipline.'" Starting in late 2024, ARM also investigated a Select Milk farm, Woodcrest Dairy, which produces milk solely for Fairlife. In a three-month investigation, ARM documented similar abuse and neglect, including "\[d]ragging and crushing animals with tractor buckets"; "shoving a steel tube . . . down the throat of cows restrained in \[a] metal head gate cage"; and "\[a]ttaching a chain to the fetus of animals in labor," which in some instances caused the calves' death by blunt force trauma. Up until 2025, Plaintiffs Aryout Michael Thomas Bhotiwihok, Jeremiah Cornelius, and Randy Paugh purchased Fairlife products in reliance on Fairlife's advertising, including the Fairlife Logo and various statements conveying Fairlife's commitment to animal care and sustainability. After learning of the animal abuses uncovered on Fairlife's farms and of the falsity of Fairlife's environmental sustainability and recyclability claims, Plaintiffs ceased purchasing Fairlife products. On February 26, 2025, Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against Defendants Fairlife, Coca-Cola, and Select Milk. \[4] Against Fairlife and Coca-Cola, Plaintiffs allege: breach of express warranty; violation of California's False Advertising Law; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and unjust enrichment. Against Select Milk, Plaintiffs allege a claim for aiding and abetting Fairlife's and Coca-Cola's FAL, UCL, and CLRA violations. Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of "\[a]ll persons residing in California who purchased Defendants' \[F]airlife Products during the relevant time period." Fairlife, Coca-Cola, and Select Milk now move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. ## III. Legal Standard A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12 for lack of a cognizable theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable theory. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading requirements of Rule 8—a short and plain statement of the claim. The factual allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Stated differently, the complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Generally, a court limits its review to the pleadings and must construe all factual allegations in the complaint "as true and . . . in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. However, a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Where a district court grants a motion to dismiss, it should generally provide leave to amend, unless it is clear the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. Leave to amend may be denied when "the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency." Thus, leave to amend "is properly denied . . . if amendment would be futile." ## IV. Discussion Across two motions, Fairlife, Coca-Cola, and Select Milk seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in its entirety. Fairlife and Coca-Cola also move to dismiss Coca-Cola as an improperly named defendant. Finally, Fairlife and Coca-Cola move to strike Plaintiffs' class action allegations and request for injunctive relief. ### A. Parent Corporation Liability as to Coca-Cola Plaintiffs argue that Coca-Cola is a properly named defendant in this action because they allege that Coca-Cola was directly involved in Fairlife's misleading marketing and advertising. In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficiently pleaded potential vicarious liability on a corporate agency theory. Plaintiffs' argument that they have adequately alleged Coca-Cola's direct involvement is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs allege that Coca-Cola is a "member of the plastics coalitions that gave rise to the practices surrounding plastics use" and that Coca-Cola uses similar sustainability marketing to Fairlife's. However, Plaintiffs fail to tie these allegations to any of their claims. In any event, it is unclear why Coca-Cola's membership in any plastics coalition or its use of marketing techniques similar to Fairlife's necessarily means that it was directly involved in Fairlife's alleged false advertising here. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to allege Coca-Cola's direct involvement in this action. Plaintiffs next argue they have sufficiently alleged an agency theory of liability against Coca-Cola. Generally, a "parent corporation . . . is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries." However, courts have recognized certain exceptions to this general rule, including "where the subsidiary acts as an agent of the parent corporation." "To establish liability of a parent corporation for the acts or omissions of its subsidiary on an agency theory, a plaintiff must show that \`a parent corporation so controls the subsidiary as to cause the subsidiary to become merely the agent or instrumentality of the parent.'" Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Coca-Cola has caused Fairlife to become its "agent or instrumentality." Plaintiffs are correct that "\[w]hether an agency relationship exists . . . is normally a question of fact." However, the Court finds no facts in the First Amended Complaint that could plausibly suggest an agency relationship between Coca-Cola and Fairlife. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that there is an agency relationship because Coca-Cola must have known of Fairlife's deceptive practices and it had "influence over Fairlife's advertising." Even assuming Coca-Cola knew of Fairlife's practices, nothing in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint suggests Coca-Cola's "influence over \[F]airlife's advertising" so dominates Fairlife's advertising as to render Fairlife a mere "agent or instrumentality" of Coca-Cola. Given the dearth of facts suggesting Coca-Cola was either directly involved in the claims here or has caused Fairlife to become its agent or instrumentality, the Court DISMISSES Coca-Cola from this action with LEAVE TO AMEND. ### B. Consumer Protection and Express Warranty Causes of Action In their first through fourth causes of action, Plaintiffs allege breaches of express warranties, the FAL, the UCL, and the CLRA. Plaintiffs predicate these four causes of action on a misrepresentation theory. Specifically, they allege that Fairlife misrepresented its animal care and sustainability record on its product packaging and on its website. As the theories underlying Plaintiffs' first four causes of action are related, the Court examines these four causes of action together. \[...] #### *2. Fairlife Logo* Plaintiffs allege that the Fairlife Logo, consisting of the Fairlife brand name set above a cartoon cow, is deceptive and a misrepresentation of Fairlife's animal care practices. To state a claim for violation of a consumer protection statute or breach of express warranty, Plaintiffs must show that a reasonable consumer could be misled by the Fairlife Logo. "Under the reasonable consumer standard, \[a plaintiff] must show that members of the public are likely to be deceived." Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a misrepresentation theory based on the Fairlife Logo. "\[B]rand names can be an especially powerful source of misleading information," even if the brand name itself is not a recognized word. For example, the brand name "PetSafe," although not a word one would find in any reputable dictionary, certainly connotes the idea that by using PetSafe products, one would not cause harm to their pets. Here, the Fairlife brand name is an amalgamation of two words: fair and life. The word "fair" is most often associated with positive adjectives, such as "reasonable, right, and just." It follows that combining the words "fair" and "life" together in a brand name may reasonably lead to the assumption that the subject of the brand lives a "fair life." However, when this brand name is superimposed on a cartoon picture of a cow, the implication becomes unmistakable: the cows are living a fair life. Thus, it is well within reason for a consumer to believe that, based on the Fairlife logo, the cows supplying Fairlife's dairy products are living lives free from abuse. Fairlife argues that the Fairlife Logo is nonactionable puffery. "Generalized, vague, and unspecified assertions constitute \`mere puffery' upon which a reasonable consumer could not rely, and hence are not actionable." Here, however, the Fairlife brand name, at bottom, suggests that the cows are living lives free from abuse. This connotation is sufficiently "specific or absolute" that a reasonable consumer could certainly rely on it when purchasing a Fairlife product. Context also helps here. Fairlife does not just put its brand name on the bottle; it places it above a cartoon image of a cow, leaving an unmistakable impression: Fairlife sources its dairy from cows that live fair lives. Taking as true at this pleading stage the substantial evidence that shows Fairlife sources its dairy from cows that live dreadful and appalling lives, it is plausible that Fairlife's labeling is misleading. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendants' have adequately pleaded their first through fourth causes of action, to the extent premised on the Fairlife Logo. #### *3. Recyclability Claims* Plaintiffs allege that the recyclability claims on the Fairlife bottle are deceptive because the bottle itself is not recyclable. Fairlife argues that Plaintiffs' claims are foreclosed by a safe harbor provision in California law. California courts recognize that, "\[i]f the Legislature has permitted certain conduct or considered a situation and concluded no action should lie, courts may not override that determination." Thus, when "specific legislation provides a \`safe harbor,' plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor." Here, the California Legislature passed a safe harbor provision that bars Plaintiffs' claims regarding recyclability through October 4, 2026. California Public Resources Code section 42355.51 governs instances where recyclability claims are considered deceptive and misleading pursuant to the FAL. However, section 42355.51 states that the preceding paragraph—section 42355.51—does not apply to "\[a]ny product or packaging that is manufactured up to 18 months after the date the department publishes the first material characterization study required" by section 42355.51, "or before January 1, 2024, whichever is later." Read plainly, it appears that the California Legislature intended to give companies eighteen months after publication of a generally applicable material characterization study to comply with recycling guidelines. On April 4, 2025, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery published its material characterization study as required by section 42355.51. Adding eighteen months, this necessarily means that companies like Fairlife have until October 4, 2026, to bring their product packaging in compliance with the CalRecycle study's findings. The Court finds that this safe harbor provision forecloses all of Plaintiffs' recyclability claims. First, section 42355.51 explicitly precludes Plaintiffs' FAL claim. The plain language of the statute provides that Plaintiffs cannot bring a "deceptive or misleading \[recyclability] claim pursuant to this section and \[the FAL]" for products and packaging manufactured up to eighteen months after publication of the material characterization study. Thus, Plaintiffs' FAL claims based on recyclability are barred until October 4, 2026. Second, under the safe-harbor doctrine, section 42355.51 also bars Plaintiffs' remaining claims. As the California Supreme Court noted in Cel-Tech, when "specific legislation provides a \`safe harbor,' plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor." Cel-Tech citation: scholar\_case?case=1418991064211763246\&q=puffery\&hl=en\&as\_sdt=6,50 This doctrine extends to CLRA claims as well. Lopez citation: scholar\_case?case=9869934206406591592\&q=puffery\&hl=en\&as\_sdt=6,50 "Like UCL claims, claims under the CLRA may be barred under the\` safe harbor' doctrine." Here, section 42355.51 provides that safe harbor for companies. And where the Legislature has specifically stated that a company's actions are legal, or at the very least, not yet illegal, courts have also found that there can be no breach of express warranty predicated on that action. For these reasons, the Court finds that California law bars, at least for now, Plaintiffs recyclability claims. #### *4. Conclusion* In summary, the Court GRANTS IN PART Fairlife's Motion and DISMISSES counts one through four, except as to Plaintiffs' claims regarding Fairlife's Logo, which survive dismissal. The Court dismisses these causes of action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to every other alleged misrepresentation or omission except Plaintiffs' recyclability claims, which the Court dismisses WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. \[...] ## V. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Select Milk's Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Fairlife and Coca-Cola's Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court: > • GRANTS Fairlife and Coca-Cola's Motion and DISMISSES Coca-Cola WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;\ > \ > • DENIES Fairlife and Coca-Cola's Motion as to Plaintiffs' first through fourth causes of action, only with respect to the Fairlife Logo misrepresentations \[...] Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within fourteen days of this Order, in which case Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond within fourteen days of Plaintiffs' filing. If Plaintiffs do not timely amend, then the causes of action and claims the Court dismisses with leave to amend shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice as of the lapse of Plaintiffs' filing deadline. In that event, Defendants shall answer the surviving claims in the First Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the lapse of Plaintiffs' deadline to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. \[3] Fairlife is stylized as "fairlife" or "fa!rlife." For readability, the Court uses Fairlife. \[4] Plaintiffs also sued Mike McCloskey and Sue McCloskey, both of whom co-founded Select Milk. However, on January 26, 2026, the Court dismissed the McCloskeys from this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://studies-de-jure.gitbook.io/learn/sourcebooks/business-law-i/contract-law-sales-contracts-and-warranties/warranties/bhotiwihok-v.-fairlife.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.