Casamigos Sued for Selling Cane Spirit as 100% Agave Tequila

Casamigos built its brand on one promise: 100% agave. George Clooney co-founded it. Diageo bought it for up to $1 billion in 2017. It became one of the five best-selling tequilas in the world. Then lab tests emerged claiming the bottles contain significant concentrations of cane-derived alcohol — and the lawsuits followed.

Three class action lawsuits filed in 2025 against Diageo North America, Inc. — owner of both Casamigos and Don Julio — allege the brands falsely market their tequilas as “100% Blue Weber Agave” while allegedly adulterating them with cheaper non-agave alcohol. The lead case, Pusateri et al. v. Diageo North America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02482, is pending before U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall in the Eastern District of New York. Diageo denies every allegation and has moved to dismiss all three suits. As of June 2026, the court has not yet ruled.

Casamigos Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

Early 2025 — Agave Industry Whistleblowers Raise Alarm

The seeds of the lawsuit predate any court filing. In early 2025, Mexican media reported that agave growers demonstrated against large tequila producers, alleging that major brands were adulterating tequilas with cheaper industrial alcohol while maintaining “100% agave” labels. The reports pointed to a coordinated effort by industry insiders — including a former industry figure facing criminal indictment in Mexico — to expose what they described as systematic fraud in the premium tequila market.

These reports, and follow-up coverage from specialist publication Mezcalistas, were cited extensively in both the original New York complaint and the later California suit. The lawsuits did not emerge from nowhere. They surfaced after years of quiet industry tension over transparency and production practices at large commercial tequila producers.

May 5, 2025 — Hagens Berman Files First Lawsuit in New York

Law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, one of the largest class action litigation firms in the United States, filed the lead complaint against Diageo North America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 5, 2025. The named plaintiffs are Avi Pusateri, a mixology instructor; Chaim Mishulovin, a social media bartender; and Sushi Tokyo, a kosher sushi restaurant in New York.

The complaint alleged that both Casamigos and Don Julio products — labeled “Tequila 100% Agave Azul” and “100% de Agave,” respectively — contained “significant concentrations of cane or other types of alcohol rather than pure tequila.” It sought more than $5 million in damages plus injunctive relief requiring Diageo to reformulate or relabel its products.

July 4, 2025 — California RICO Lawsuit Filed by Baron and Budd

A second, more aggressive complaint landed on July 4, 2025, in the San Francisco division of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed by law firm Baron and Budd, P.C. in conjunction with Hagens Berman. The plaintiff was Jacqueline Jackson, a California resident who purchased at least four bottles of Don Julio Blanco between April and May 2025.

This suit went further than its New York predecessor. It alleged not just false advertising but racketeering and fraudulent scheming under RICO — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. RICO claims carry the potential for treble damages. The California complaint was also more specific: it published precise alleged test results, giving numbers where the New York complaint had given only general allegations.

July–October 2025 — Diageo Calls Claims “Baseless” and “Outrageous”

Diageo moved quickly. The company denied every allegation in a July 14, 2025 statement, calling the claims “outrageous and categorically false.” A spokesperson committed to “vigorously defend the quality and integrity of our tequilas in court.” The company pointed to its certification by the Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT) — Mexico’s official tequila regulatory body — and approval from the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) as proof of compliance.

A third related lawsuit also emerged in Florida during this period, naming both brands.

September 12, 2025 — New York Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint

The New York plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 12, 2025, strengthening the factual allegations. The amendment retained the core claim — that Casamigos and Don Julio contain non-agave alcohol — and incorporated additional detail about the testing methodology and the regulatory framework plaintiffs argued Diageo violated.

October 29 – November 1, 2025 — Diageo Files Motions to Dismiss in Florida and New York

Diageo filed a motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuit on October 29, 2025, and followed with a New York motion to dismiss on November 1. Both filings attacked the scientific validity of the testing methods used and the coherence of the plaintiffs’ pleadings.

In the New York motion, Diageo’s legal team called the case “a Bermuda Triangle of pleading” and described the complaint as “implausible” and “manufactured.” The company argued that plaintiffs claimed to have purchased more than 73 bottles yet relied on “partial and unintelligible results from five unidentified samples.” The motion accused the unnamed testing laboratory of being a “single European contractor” whose methods were scientifically unvalidated and whose results had never been peer-reviewed.

2026 — All Cases Consolidated Before Judge DeArcy Hall

Multiple lawsuits were consolidated before the Honorable LaShann DeArcy Hall in the Eastern District of New York. As of the most recent update in May 2026, the parties are still awaiting rulings on Diageo’s motions to dismiss.

On May 6, 2026, Diageo requested a stay of the cases pending resolution of the dismissal motions. On May 8, 2026, plaintiffs filed a letter to Judge DeArcy Hall opposing the stay, arguing Diageo had failed to meet the legal threshold required to pause litigation. No ruling on the stay request has been issued.

What Casamigos Plaintiffs Actually Allege — the Science Behind the Lawsuit

The central allegation is not about taste or marketing spin. It is a scientific claim: that laboratory analysis proves the ethanol inside Casamigos and Don Julio bottles did not come entirely from Blue Weber agave plants.

The testing method cited is carbon isotope ratio analysis, also described in some filings as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) analysis. The science rests on a biological fact: different plants fix carbon dioxide through different photosynthetic pathways. Agave uses a pathway that produces a distinct ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 isotopes. Sugarcane uses a different pathway and produces a different carbon signature. A sufficiently sensitive laboratory instrument can identify which plants supplied the sugars that were fermented into the ethanol in any given bottle.

The California complaint was the most specific. According to its allegations:

The numbers matter for a specific legal reason. Even a “mixto” tequila — the cheaper category that legally contains non-agave sugars — must contain at least 51% agave-derived alcohol. Casamigos Blanco at an alleged 33% agave content would not qualify as tequila under any regulatory category. It would be a mislabeled product under both U.S. TTB regulations and Mexico’s Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM) standards for tequila.

The plaintiffs argue that consumers pay a steep premium for the 100% agave designation. Blue Weber agave takes five to ten years to cultivate and harvest. Cane alcohol is far cheaper and far faster to produce. The premium on Casamigos and Don Julio — both positioned as luxury or super-premium expressions priced at $40–$80 per bottle — rests entirely on that agave authenticity claim. If cane spirit makes up the majority of what is in the bottle, the plaintiffs argue, consumers paid a premium for a product that did not exist.

Diageo’s Defense — Why It Says the Tests Mean Nothing

Diageo’s response is categorical and consistent: every bottle of Casamigos and Don Julio labeled “100% agave” is made from 100% Blue Weber agave. The company points to two layers of certification that it says prove compliance.

First, the CRT — the Consejo Regulador del Tequila — certifies tequila production in Mexico. CRT certification requires that 100% agave products contain no non-agave alcohol. Diageo holds that certification for both brands. Second, the U.S. TTB approved the labels. Both agencies, Diageo argues, provide independent verification that the products meet the standards the labels claim.

On the testing itself, Diageo’s motion to dismiss called the plaintiffs’ methodology scientifically unvalidated. Diageo argued that the unnamed European laboratory that conducted the tests has never had its NMR carbon isotope approach peer-reviewed or accepted in the scientific community as a reliable method for identifying alcohol sources in aged spirits. Aging and blending processes, Diageo’s lawyers suggested, could affect isotope ratios in ways that do not reflect the original botanical source of the alcohol.

Diageo also attacked the sample size. The New York motion described the five-sample result as the equivalent of polling five precincts in a 73-precinct election and declaring a winner. The company argued the plaintiffs could not even demonstrate that the bottles they claimed to have purchased were ever tested — that the test results in the complaint came from someone else’s samples, not the plaintiffs’ own purchases.

The pattern is familiar: when a defendant holds regulatory certification and faces a scientific allegation, the litigation centers on whether the plaintiffs’ science is credible enough to survive a motion to dismiss. That ruling, from Judge DeArcy Hall, will determine whether the cases proceed to discovery — where Diageo’s actual production records, supplier contracts, and internal quality data would become accessible to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Who Can File a Claim and Who Qualifies

No class has been certified. No settlement exists. The lawsuit is at a pre-discovery stage, pending rulings on motions to dismiss. That said, the class as defined in the complaints would include any U.S. consumer who purchased Casamigos or Don Julio products labeled as “100% agave” during the applicable statute of limitations window — typically three to six years under New York and California consumer protection laws.

Businesses — restaurants, bars, and retailers — that purchased significant volumes for resale may have stronger claims than individual consumers, given the volume of product involved. The original New York complaint included a restaurant plaintiff for this reason. At this stage, potential class members should preserve any purchase documentation and monitor the case for class certification proceedings, which would not occur until after the dismissal motions are resolved.

The Regulatory Failure Question — What the CRT Does and Doesn’t Catch

The Casamigos lawsuit raises a broader question that neither Diageo nor the plaintiffs have fully answered: how reliable is CRT certification as a guarantee of tequila purity?

The New York complaint raised this directly, alleging “unverified reports of corruption and lax enforcement” at the CRT. Mexico’s tequila regulatory council has faced criticism for years from small producers and transparency advocates who argue the agency is too close to the large commercial producers it is supposed to police. Diageo invokes CRT certification as its primary defense. The plaintiffs argue that certification from a body potentially compromised by industry influence is no guarantee of purity.

What matters here is the testing gap. The CRT’s standard verification process does not routinely include carbon isotope analysis of the kind the plaintiffs commissioned. It relies primarily on self-reporting, facility inspections, and chemical analysis that can confirm the presence of agave compounds but may not precisely quantify what percentage of total ethanol derives from agave versus other sources. If that gap is real, and if the plaintiffs’ testing methodology holds up to scientific scrutiny, it would expose a structural failure in how “100% agave” is certified and monitored across the entire premium tequila industry — not just at Diageo.

The CRT controversy extends further. In a separate but related dispute, the CRT has warned some smaller producers that use the “additive-free” label — a different claim from “100% agave” — that their export licenses could be revoked for misleading consumers. The CRT stated that tequila can legally contain additives like colorants and sweeteners. That regulatory position sits awkwardly alongside the agency’s role as the guarantor of premium tequila authenticity.

What George Clooney’s $1 Billion Brand Means for the Stakes

Casamigos occupies an unusual place in the tequila market. George Clooney, Rande Gerber, and Mike Meldman founded it in 2013 as a private label for their own consumption — a smooth, highly accessible blanco that didn’t remind them of the burns and roughness they associated with other tequilas. It went commercial and grew rapidly.

Diageo acquired Casamigos in 2017 for up to $1 billion — $700 million upfront and up to $300 million in performance milestones. By 2023, Casamigos was selling approximately 3 million cases annually. That volume, at retail prices ranging from $40 for the Blanco to $55 for the Añejo, represents hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue built on a single labeling claim: 100% agave.

That is what makes the lawsuit consequential beyond a standard consumer fraud case. If plaintiffs survive the motions to dismiss and proceed to class certification, the damages calculation runs against an enormous revenue base. Every bottle of Casamigos sold as 100% agave — if the allegation is proven — represents a premium the consumer paid for a property the product allegedly lacked. Across 3 million cases, the numbers compound fast.

Diageo’s broader tequila portfolio amplifies the exposure. Don Julio, which Diageo has owned for far longer, is one of the most recognized luxury tequila brands globally. Together, the two brands rank among the five best-selling tequilas worldwide. A court finding against Diageo on the core purity question — however unlikely at this stage — would reshape both brands’ market positioning permanently.

Similar to the Red Bull and Kirkland Tequila Cases — the Broader Pattern

The Casamigos litigation fits a pattern that has accelerated across premium beverage categories. Consumers paying a markup for an ingredient-defined product — 100% agave, single-origin coffee, cold-pressed juice — are increasingly willing to fund scientific testing to challenge the labels they paid a premium for.

Hagens Berman, the lead firm in the Casamigos case, simultaneously filed a separate class action against Costco alleging that its Kirkland Signature tequila contained non-agave sugars. Similar to the Red Bull false advertising settlement, where the company ultimately paid $13 million over a marketing claim it could not substantiate, the core theory is the same: when consumers pay a premium for a specific quality claim, and that claim is false, the gap between what was promised and what was delivered becomes the measure of damages.

The Casamigos case is legally distinct in one important way. Red Bull’s lawsuit challenged a marketing slogan. The Casamigos lawsuit challenges a regulatory standard with legal force in both Mexico and the United States. If the plaintiffs’ testing holds up, the argument is not that Diageo made a misleading claim — it is that Diageo violated Mexican law and U.S. labeling regulations governing what can legally be sold as tequila.

The Starbucks consumer class actions followed a similar trajectory: large brand, premium positioning, labeling claim, scientific or documented challenge, followed by class certification and eventual settlement pressure. The timeline on those cases ran three to five years from filing to resolution.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Casamigos lawsuit teaches two things. The first is about trust and price. When consumers pay $50 or $60 for a bottle because the label says “100% agave,” they are paying for a specific agricultural product — Blue Weber agave, grown for a decade, harvested by hand, fermented into spirit. If a significant portion of what is in the bottle is cheap industrial cane alcohol, the premium is not connected to the product. It is connected to the label. That is what false advertising law exists to address.

The second lesson is institutional. Regulatory certification is not the same as independent verification. The CRT certifies Diageo’s tequilas. The TTB approved the labels. Neither body appears to have used the carbon isotope ratio analysis method that plaintiffs commissioned. Regulatory approval, in a market where the regulator has potential conflicts with the industries it oversees, may not provide consumers with the protection they assume it does.

At this stage, nothing has been proven in court. Diageo denies every allegation, and the motions to dismiss are pending. The judge may conclude the plaintiffs’ testing methodology does not support the claims. Or she may let the cases proceed to discovery — where the actual answer to the agave question might finally emerge from Diageo’s production records. Either way, millions of consumers who bought Casamigos over the past decade are watching the courtroom for an answer to a question they thought the label already answered.

Read These

• Senate lawsuit provision repealed by the House
• Red Bull false advertising lawsuit
• Toyota UA80 transmission defect lawsuit
• Toyota driver data tracking class action
• Homeschool diploma Pennsylvania lawsuit