Nestle USA is facing a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers about the health benefits of its San Pellegrino sparkling fruit beverages. The lawsuit, filed by two California residents in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that the beverages are marketed as healthy and "natural" despite containing up to 26 grams of added sugar per can.

The plaintiffs, Jill Calangian and Natalie Gianne, argue that Nestle's promotional claims regarding the "naturalness" of the San Pellegrino drinks deceive consumers into believing the products are health-conscious options. The lawsuit asserts that the labels, which highlight the use of "natural origin" fruits and depict ripe fruit and leaves, give the false impression that the drinks are beneficial to health and well-being.

The lawsuit emphasizes that each 11.5-ounce can of the product contains between 17 and 26 grams of added sugar, which constitutes between 34% and 52% of the FDA’s recommended daily value for sugar. This amount of sugar far exceeds the American Heart Association's recommendations, which suggest that added sugar should not exceed 5% of total calories, or about 12 grams for younger children, 25 grams for adult women, and 38 grams for adult men.

The plaintiffs claim that Nestle's marketing strategy misrepresents the San Pellegrino beverages as healthier than they are, despite the high sugar content. The marketing of the beverages as "Made with Natural Origin" fruits and the use of the term "Naturali," which means "natural" in Italian, are cited as deceptive in the lawsuit.

Both Calangian and Gianne assert that had they known about the high sugar content, they would not have purchased the products or would have done so only at a lower price. They argue that Nestle is able to charge a premium for the drinks because consumers mistakenly believe they are healthier than other beverages.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers in California who purchased the San Pellegrino products within the past four years. The complaint includes claims for violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, noting that the products’ marketing fails to disclose material facts regarding the health risks of excessive sugar consumption.

The plaintiffs are represented by Charles C. Weller of Charles C. Weller APC. Counsel for Nestle was not immediately available for comment.