By Bob Paterson The words ‘0 Preservatives’ became the focus of a federal lawsuit over ZOA Energy drinks. A consumer argued that the label sent a misleading message because the beverages contained citric and ascorbic acids, ingredients he said performed a preservative function. ZOA disputed that characterization and defended its labels. Rather than proceed through a final liability trial, the parties negotiated a proposed $3 million class-action settlement. Its official notices explain who could qualify, the reimbursement formula and the February 2026 claim deadline.
Why Was ZOA Energy Sued?
The lawsuit is Gershzon v. ZOA Energy, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05444-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge James Donato. Plaintiff Mikhail Gershzon alleged that customers could reasonably understand ‘0 Preservatives’ to mean that the drinks contained no ingredients serving as preservatives.
The complaint highlighted citric acid and ascorbic acid. Those substances may have multiple roles in food products; an ingredient’s presence alone does not establish that a label is legally misleading. The actual case turns on the products’ labeling, the ingredients’ functions and the reasonable consumer interpretation. ZOA denied wrongdoing and maintained that its marketing was accurate and lawful.
What Did the Proposed Settlement Cover?
The agreement established a maximum $3 million fund intended to cover eligible customer claims as well as court-approved attorneys’ fees, administrative expenses and an award for the named representative. The court preliminarily approved the settlement in November 2025 and authorized notice to consumers.
The official class period was March 1, 2021 through November 21, 2025. Qualifying class members were U.S. residents who purchased ZOA Energy drinks labeled ‘0 Preservatives’ for personal consumption rather than resale. Not all purchases of any ZOA product automatically qualified; the disputed wording had to appear on the relevant drink’s label.
How Were Payments Calculated?
The official notice described two methods. With adequate proof of purchase, the proposed refund was $1 per purchased unit, capped at $150 per household. Without receipts, the proposed refund was $1 per unit, capped at $10 per household. Consumers had to file one claim using the most appropriate method.
These were maximum stated amounts, not guaranteed final checks. The fund also covered settlement expenses, and valid claims could be proportionately reduced if total demand exceeded the available amount. The arrangement included proposed injunctive relief concerning future labeling.
Was There a Claim Deadline?
Yes. The official settlement website stated that claims had to be submitted online or postmarked by February 20, 2026. The deadline for opting out or objecting was February 13. A final-approval hearing was scheduled for March 26, 2026.
An important status limitation remains: the available settlement website continued describing the agreement as proposed and displaying its scheduled approval hearing. The materials reviewed do not independently establish a final approval order or confirm that all checks were issued. A scheduled hearing is not proof that final approval was granted or that payments have been distributed.
What Happens to Unused or Rejected Payments?
According to the proposed terms, an inadequate receipt could cause an otherwise valid claim to be considered under the no-receipt formula. Payments not redeemed within the stated period would no longer be payable and could be directed to the settlement’s designated nonprofit recipient. These details matter because consumers may not receive the amount they initially calculate from the number of cans bought.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Can I submit a new ZOA claim in October 2026?
The official February 20, 2026 deadline has passed. No verified extension or reopened claims period was identified in the reviewed settlement materials.
Q. How much could one household claim without receipts?
The official proposed formula allowed $1 per qualifying unit, up to $10 per household without acceptable proof of purchase, subject to any fund-wide adjustment.
Q. Does the settlement mean a court ruled ZOA’s drinks were falsely labeled?
No. ZOA denied the allegations, and the settlement was negotiated without a liability finding. The official notice said the court had not decided which side was right.
Q. Is the entire $3 million going directly to customers?
No. The stated fund also pays attorneys’ fees, administration and approved representative awards. The actual consumer distribution depends on allowed expenses and approved claims.