Black Rifle Coffee faces class action over American origin claims

Black Rifle Coffee Company faces a federal class action lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers with "America's Coffee" branding and prominent American flag displays despite sourcing and processing coffee beans entirely outside the United States.

Two consumers filed the complaint on November 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Justin Bakker from Turlock, California, and Noah Lundgren from Kingston, New York, claim Black Rifle's packaging creates false impressions about domestic manufacturing that influenced their purchasing decisions.

The lawsuit centers on Black Rifle's unqualified origin claims appearing across nearly all coffee bag labels. Each package displays "America's Coffee" alongside a prominent American flag on the front panel. Plaintiffs contend this combination constitutes implied "Made in USA" advertising under both California state law and Federal Trade Commission regulations.

Coffee production occurs outside United States

Black Rifle sources all coffee from foreign countries, primarily from the coffee belt region near the equator. The United States ranks 38th among global coffee producers, with production limited almost entirely to Hawaii. The complaint notes that less than 1% of coffee consumed domestically comes from U.S. origins.

Coffee undergoes substantial transformation from cherry to bean before reaching American roasters. The processing involves harvesting, density sorting, pulping, fermentation, drying, milling, and grading—operations that occur entirely in source countries for Black Rifle's supply chain.

Harvested coffee cherries pass through water channels for density separation. Lighter unripe fruits float while heavier ripe fruits sink. The cherries then move through rotating drums for size sorting before pulping machines separate the tough cherry skin from the seed.

After pulping, seeds covered in sticky mucilage enter fermentation tanks. Water-filled tanks use naturally occurring enzymes to dissolve mucilage over eight to 15 hours. Dry fermentation takes 12 to 48 hours. Following fermentation, beans are rinsed, agitated to remove mucilage, and left in their parchment layer for drying.

Drying occurs either through sun exposure on tables or floors taking one to two weeks, greenhouse drying requiring three to four weeks, or machine drying completed in under two days. Moisture levels drop from approximately 60% to 11% during this phase. Dried beans are bagged with parchment intact and stored for several months to even out moisture distribution.

Just before shipping, beans undergo milling. Hullers remove remaining fruit material—either crumbly parchment skin from wet processing or entire leather fruit from dry processing. Size graders sort beans to ensure uniform roasting. Density separators divide beans by weight. Electronic color sorters detect and discard defective beans.

Black Rifle's role begins after receiving dried green beans. The company roasts beans at 180 to 250 degrees Celsius for seven to 20 minutes depending on desired roast level. Roasted beans are rapidly cooled and bagged for sale.

California law prohibits unqualified USA claims

California Business and Professions Code Section 17533.7 makes it unlawful to sell merchandise marked "Made in U.S.A.," "Made in America," "U.S.A.," or similar words if the merchandise has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside the United States.

The statute permits foreign components constituting no more than 5% of final wholesale value. A secondary provision allows up to 10% if companies demonstrate inability to produce or obtain materials from domestic sources. Neither safe harbor applies to Black Rifle's operations, according to the complaint.

The FTC has increased enforcement of Made in USA claims across marketplace platforms. On July 8, 2025, the Commission warned Amazon and Walmart about third-party sellers making deceptive domestic origin claims. The agency clarified that products labeled "Made in the United States" must meet the "all or virtually all" standard, meaning all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin with at most negligible foreign content.

Federal regulations define Made in USA advertising broadly to include implied representations that a product is of U.S. origin, including claims that products are "made," "manufactured," "built," "produced," or "created" in the United States. The regulations specifically cite displaying the American flag as potentially conveying an origin claim either alone or in conjunction with other phrases or images.

FTC guidance explicitly addresses coffee. The agency states that displaying an American flag on coffee packaging may convey a claim of U.S. origin when combined with phrases like "America's Coffee." The guidance notes that consumers reasonably interpret such combined imagery as representing domestic sourcing and production.

Plaintiffs claim material deception

Bakker regularly purchased Black Rifle products from Save Mart and Safeway stores in Turlock and Merced until February 2025. He typically bought "Wakin the Neighbors" coffee and occasionally "Spirit of '76" bags. Both varieties feature the "America's Coffee" slogan and American flag on front labels.

Lundgren purchased "Tactisquatch" coffee at a Walmart in Kingston on June 28, 2025. The label carries identical front-panel branding elements.

Both plaintiffs state they actively seek American-made products and sometimes pay premium prices for domestic goods. They relied on Black Rifle's packaging when making purchase decisions, believing the coffee was sourced and produced in the United States. Had they known the truth, they would have paid less or selected competitors.

The complaint alleges Black Rifle purposefully designed packaging to mislead consumers. While side panels contain inconspicuous text stating beans are roasted in the United States, prominent front-panel imagery creates contrary impressions. The plaintiffs contend this placement strategy constitutes intentional deception.

Consumer willingness to pay premiums for American-made products forms part of the complaint's economic harm theory. Research documented in consumer litigation shows that Made in USA claims influence purchasing decisions and support higher price points across product categories.

Multiple state law violations alleged

The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act prohibits misrepresenting sources, using deceptive representations, representing that goods have characteristics they do not have, and advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised. The complaint claims Black Rifle violated all these provisions.

California's False Advertising Law prohibits advertising that is false or has a capacity to deceive or confuse the public. The statute covers advertising that may be technically true but remains misleading in overall impression.

California's Unfair Competition Law prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. The complaint alleges violations under all three prongs. The unlawful prong incorporates the other state law and FTC violations. The fraudulent prong addresses likelihood of deceiving the public. The unfair prong claims negative impacts on consumers outweigh any benefits.

New York General Business Law Section 349 declares deceptive acts or practices in business, trade, or commerce unlawful. Section 350 prohibits false advertising. Plaintiffs seek actual damages or statutory minimums of $50 under Section 349 and $500 under Section 350.

The lawsuit demands class certification for all California residents who purchased Black Rifle coffee within applicable statutes of limitations, plus a separate class for New York residents. The company's products are sold through Amazon, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Sam's Club, and other major retailers.

Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and BRC Inc., both Delaware corporations headquartered in Salt Lake City, are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol BRCC with a market capitalization exceeding $370 million.

Plaintiffs sent a Consumer Legal Remedies Act demand letter to Black Rifle on September 11, 2025. In-house counsel acknowledged receipt on October 3, 2025, responding with a single word—"No"—when asked about pre-filing resolution discussions. The company has taken no corrective action.

Marketing community implications

False advertising litigation has intensified across digital marketing channels as platforms face accountability for misleading claims. Mobile advertising fraud schemes resulted in federal charges against executives who inflated revenue by approximately 28% through fictitious transactions. The Black Rifle lawsuit demonstrates how traditional consumer protection law applies to modern brand positioning strategies that blur geographic origin claims.

Made in USA compliance affects digital advertising campaigns across search, social, and e-commerce platforms. Marketers must ensure that imagery, slogans, and positioning statements align with FTC standards requiring substantiation of domestic origin claims. Platforms including Google have strengthened enforcement of advertiser verification programs, suspending accounts that provide false information.

The case highlights tensions between brand identity and legal compliance. Black Rifle's military veteran-focused positioning emphasizes American values and patriotic imagery. The lawsuit questions whether symbolic association with American identity crosses into factual misrepresentation of manufacturing locations.

Consumer protection enforcement has expanded significantly throughout 2025. The FTC has pursued major technology companies making false claims about artificial intelligence capabilities, exclusive brand partnerships, and business opportunities. These cases demonstrate regulatory prioritization of accurate advertising claims across digital channels.

Class action lawsuits provide private enforcement mechanisms supplementing government oversight. Recent antitrust litigation has targeted anticompetitive practices in advertising technology markets, while consumer protection cases address misleading marketing practices directly affecting purchase decisions.

Advertising professionals should review origin claims in creative materials, product descriptions, and keyword targeting. Implied claims through flag imagery or geographical references require the same level of substantiation as explicit Made in USA statements. Platform policies prohibit content designed to gain unfair advantages, including misleading representations about product attributes.

The legal theory underlying the Black Rifle complaint applies broadly to consumer goods marketed with patriotic imagery. Coffee, apparel, outdoor equipment, and food products frequently employ American symbolism in branding. Marketers must distinguish between aspirational messaging about company values and factual claims about product origins.

Zimmerman Reed LLP attorneys Ryan Ellersick and Zain Shirazi represent the plaintiffs. The complaint demands jury trial, class certification, damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive relief to stop allegedly misleading practices. The case is assigned number 2:25-cv-03193-DAD-CSK in the Eastern District of California.

Timeline

• November 3, 2025: Justin Bakker and Noah Lundgren file class action complaint against Black Rifle Coffee in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
• October 3, 2025: Black Rifle in-house counsel responds to settlement discussions with single word "No"
• September 11, 2025: Plaintiffs send Consumer Legal Remedies Act demand letter to Black Rifle headquarters
• June 28, 2025: Plaintiff Lundgren purchases Tactisquatch coffee at Walmart in Kingston, New York
• July 8, 2025: FTC warns Amazon and Walmart about false Made in USA claims by third-party sellers
• February 2025: Plaintiff Bakker stops purchasing Black Rifle coffee products
• August 7, 2025: Federal prosecutors charge advertising executives with $25 million fraud scheme
• September 8, 2025: PubMatic files antitrust lawsuit against Google following monopoly ruling

Summary

Who: Justin Bakker from Turlock, California, and Noah Lundgren from Kingston, New York, filed the lawsuit against Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and BRC Inc. The plaintiffs represent proposed classes of California and New York consumers who purchased the company's coffee products. Zimmerman Reed LLP attorneys Ryan Ellersick and Zain Shirazi are representing the plaintiffs.

What: The class action lawsuit alleges Black Rifle Coffee violates California and New York consumer protection laws by using "America's Coffee" branding and American flag imagery despite sourcing and processing coffee beans entirely outside the United States. The complaint claims violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17533.7, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350.

When: The complaint was filed on November 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff Bakker regularly purchased Black Rifle coffee until February 2025. Plaintiff Lundgren purchased coffee on June 28, 2025. The plaintiffs sent a demand letter on September 11, 2025, which Black Rifle rejected on October 3, 2025.

Where: The lawsuit is filed in the Eastern District of California where plaintiff Bakker resides. Black Rifle Coffee operates from headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah. The company sells products through major retailers including Amazon, Target, Walmart, Kroger, and Sam's Club across the United States. Coffee beans are sourced from countries near the equator where coffee grows naturally, with processing occurring entirely in those source countries before shipping to the United States.

Why: The lawsuit matters because it addresses whether patriotic branding and flag imagery constitute factual claims about product origins requiring substantiation under consumer protection law. The case demonstrates how Made in USA regulations apply to implied claims through visual elements rather than explicit text. For the marketing community, the litigation highlights compliance requirements for geographic origin claims in digital advertising, packaging design, and brand positioning strategies. The outcome could affect how companies use national symbols in marketing materials across categories where domestic manufacturing claims influence consumer purchasing decisions.