Black Rifle Coffee lawsuit: the Made in USA class action status

Black Rifle Coffee lawsuit status as of 23 October 2026

The Black Rifle Coffee lawsuit over America's Coffee packaging is Bakker v. Black Rifle Coffee Co., No. 2:25-cv-03193, a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California before Judge Dale A. Drozd. It was filed on 3 November 2025. As of 23 October 2026, per the docket as last retrieved, it is pending: the defendants' motion to dismiss (entry 14) and motion to strike (entry 15), both filed on 9 January 2026, were submitted without oral argument by a minute order of 3 March 2026 (entry 29), and the entries retrieved include no ruling and no amended complaint.

The newest entry retrieved is number 35, dated 12 June 2026, a designation of counsel for service by the defendants. That is more than four months before this check, and a docket copy can trail the court's own record, so a ruling entered after June would not necessarily appear. What the entries do establish is the sequence: the plaintiffs opposed both motions on 30 January 2026, the defendants replied on 17 February, and the court declined to set a schedule while the motions are pending.

The plaintiffs are two consumers, Justin Bakker and Noah Lundgren, who sue for themselves and for others in California and New York. They allege that the slogan "America's Coffee" and an American flag on the front of the bag tell shoppers the coffee is American, and that it is not. Those are allegations from a complaint. No court has found that the packaging is misleading, and the company has asked the court to dismiss the case.

The Black Rifle Coffee class action lawsuit: what the complaint pleads

The complaint is Document 1 on the docket, a 25-page filing dated 3 November 2025 and signed by lawyers of Zimmerman Reed LLP. It opens from the front of the bag. According to paragraph 22, the defendants "use the slogan 'America's Coffee' on the front of their coffee bags, along with a prominent display of the American flag", and paragraph 23 says almost all of their bag labels are identical or substantially similar in that respect. Paragraph 4 alleges that none of the coffee the defendants sell is grown or produced in the United States, and paragraph 8 alleges that the sourcing of the raw beans and the processing of the coffee fruit into dried beans take place abroad.

The complaint then argues that a reasonable consumer reads the slogan and the flag as a claim that "all or virtually all of the product is made in the United States" (paragraph 6), and that the defendants can charge a premium because of that advertising (paragraph 5). It describes how coffee cherries become dried green beans, in paragraphs 30 to 46, and alleges that "nearly the entire process for making Defendants' coffee" happens abroad. The part the defendants do in the United States, on the complaint's account, is to roast and bag the beans (paragraph 45). Paragraph 66 adds that a statement on the side of the bag, in what the complaint calls inconspicuous lettering, reveals that the coffee is only roasted in the United States.

Paragraph 28 concedes that coffee can be grown in the United States, "generally in Hawaii, but also in Puerto Rico and California", and alleges that all commercially grown U.S.-origin coffee comes from Hawaii. Paragraph 29 alleges that the defendants use none of it. The defendants named are Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC and BRC Inc., both described in paragraph 18 as Delaware corporations based in Salt Lake City that sell through their website and through retailers including Albertsons, Amazon, Kroger, Sam's Club, Target, Tractor Supply and Walmart.

Mr. Bakker, according to paragraph 16, lives in Turlock, California, and until about February 2025 regularly bought bags such as "Wakin the Neighbors" and "Spirit of '76" at stores in Turlock and Merced, including Save Mart and Safeway. Mr. Lundgren, according to paragraph 17, lives in Kingston, New York, and on or around 28 June 2025 bought a "Tactisquatch" bag at a Walmart there. Each says he relied on the slogan and the flag, understood the coffee to be American, and would have paid less or bought a competitor's coffee had he known otherwise.

The complaint pleads six counts. Mr. Bakker brings four on behalf of a California class: a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17533.7, of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, of the False Advertising Law and of the Unfair Competition Law. Mr. Lundgren brings two on behalf of a New York class, under General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and seeks the greater of actual damages or $50 under section 349 and $500 under section 350. The request for relief asks for certification of the classes, damages, restitution or disgorgement, declarations, an injunction against the packaging, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and the complaint demands a jury trial.

Paragraph 80 recounts a pre-suit step required for one of the California claims. It says a demand letter went to the defendants on 11 September 2025, that in-house counsel acknowledged it on 3 October 2025, and that when plaintiffs' counsel asked about a pre-filing resolution the reply was a single word, "No". That is the plaintiffs' account of a private exchange, and the defendants' side of it is not in anything retrieved for this page.

Made in USA: what the federal rule, California law and the FTC say

Three sources of law sit behind the Made in USA claim, and the complaint cites all of them. The first is the Federal Trade Commission's Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 323, which the Federal Register published in July 2021. Section 323.1(a) defines "Made in the United States" as "any unqualified representation, express or implied, that a product or service, or a specified component thereof, is of U.S. origin", including a representation that it is made, manufactured, built, produced, created or crafted in the United States or in America, "or any other unqualified U.S.-origin claim". Section 323.2 makes it an unfair or deceptive practice to label a product that way "unless the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States".

That rule is enforced by the FTC, which treats a violation as a violation of a rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (section 323.4). It does not displace state law: section 323.5 says a state rule that gives consumers greater protection is not inconsistent with it. The plaintiffs invoke it as support for the state-law claims, and paragraph 96 pleads the FTC Act among the sources for the "unlawful" prong of the California Unfair Competition Law claim. The FTC's business guidance, "Complying with the Made in USA Standard" (last updated July 2024), says that U.S. symbols such as flags "may convey a claim of U.S. origin either by themselves, or in conjunction with other phrases or images", and defines a qualified claim as one that "describes the extent, amount or type of a product's domestic content or processing". Paragraph 11 of the complaint quotes the first of those statements.

The second source is California's own statute, which is the first count of the California claim. Section 17533.7(a) makes it unlawful "to sell or offer for sale in this state any merchandise on which merchandise or on its container there appears the words 'Made in U.S.A.,' 'Made in America,' 'U.S.A.,' or similar words if the merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States". Two exceptions follow. Subsection (b) covers merchandise made in the United States whose foreign articles, units or parts are not more than 5 percent of the final wholesale value. Subsection (c) allows up to 10 percent where the manufacturer shows it can neither produce the part in the United States nor obtain it from a domestic source, and says that finding may not rest on cost.

Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the complaint argue that neither exception applies, because coffee is the product and so exceeds both thresholds, and because coffee can be and is grown in the United States. Paragraph 9 argues that "America's Coffee" with a flag is "similar" to the words "U.S.A." in the statute. Whether a slogan and a flag amount to a claim of U.S. origin at all is the question the case turns on, and no court has answered it here.

The third source is New York law. The complaint quotes section 349(a), which declares unlawful "deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce", and section 350, which declares false advertising in the conduct of any business unlawful. New York has no statute written specifically for Made in USA claims, as paragraph 11 points out, which is why the Lundgren counts rest on the general deception statutes and use the federal rule and the FTC guidance as the measure of what an origin claim is.

The proposed classes: who could be affected

Paragraph 49 proposes a California class of "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased Defendants' coffee bags". Paragraph 50 proposes the same for New York. Paragraph 51 excludes the defendants, their officers, directors, employees and affiliates, and the judges and court personnel on the case, and paragraph 52 reserves the right to change the definitions. A purchase outside those two states is not within either proposed class.

The complaint pleads all of the Rule 23 requirements in paragraphs 54 to 60: numerosity, which it estimates at tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, common questions about the labeling, typicality, adequacy and superiority. It pleads certification under Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The jurisdictional paragraph (19) rests on the Class Action Fairness Act: more than $5,000,000 in controversy, more than 100 members and at least one member who is a citizen of a state different from the defendant.

None of this makes anyone a class member today. A class exists in the legal sense only after the court certifies one, and the docket entries retrieved show no motion for certification. A reader who bought the coffee does not register or sign up, and no notice or claim form exists. The step-by-step account of how a class is defined, noticed and paid is in the guide to what a class action lawsuit is and how it works, and the contrast with a case that has reached certification is the Ticketmaster fee case, where a notice and an exclusion deadline have already gone out. Until a class is certified, the Black Rifle Coffee class action lawsuit is a class action only in the sense that it was filed as one.

Docket history, entry by entry

The docket numbers 35 entries in the copy retrieved, and the first 19 are procedural. The complaint was filed on 3 November 2025 and the clerk issued summonses and the new-case documents the next day, setting an initial scheduling conference for 9 March 2026 (entries 2 and 3). Zain Shirazi appeared for the plaintiffs on 7 November (entry 4). Both defendants were served on 10 November 2025, with an answer due on 1 December (entries 5 and 6). On 26 November the defendants' counsel appeared and the parties filed a stipulation on a briefing schedule (entries 7 and 8), which the court adopted by minute order on 1 December (entry 9).

On 9 January 2026 the defendants filed the motion to dismiss, with a memorandum and a request for judicial notice (entry 14), the motion to strike the complaint, with its memorandum (entry 15), and a supporting declaration (entry 16). The hearing was set for 6 April 2026 before Judge Drozd. Three lawyers for the defendants were admitted to appear pro hac vice the same day (entries 17 to 19), and a notice of errata corrected the declaration on 21 January (entry 20). The plaintiffs opposed both motions on 30 January (entries 21 and 22). A stipulation of 6 February moved the defendants' reply deadline (entry 23), and a minute order of 9 February set it for 16 February (entry 24). The replies are entries 25 and 26, dated 17 February.

The parties' joint status report followed on 23 February (entry 27). The next day the court said it would not issue a scheduling order while the motions are pending and vacated the 9 March conference (entry 28). On 3 March it submitted both motions without oral argument and vacated the 6 April hearing (entry 29). Entries 30 to 35 are a notice of errata to a reply (9 March), a notice of withdrawal of counsel for the plaintiffs filed by Mr. Shirazi (7 April), and, in June, a change of firm association, a pro hac vice application and order for another defense lawyer, and a designation of counsel for service (entries 32 to 35). None of them decides anything in the case.

How the timeline was assembled

The timeline lists dated entries from the CourtListener docket for case 2:25-cv-03193, retrieved on 23 October 2026, together with the filing date of Document 1. Of the 35 or more numbered entries, it shows the ones that move the case or its schedule and leaves out routine counsel notices. The picture cannot show what is inside the motion papers, which were not retrieved, and the docket mirror can lag the court's own record, so the dates are those of the entries as listed. The docket page linked below is the evidence, and a later entry would change the last row.

What the company has said in its own filings

BRC Inc. refers to the case in its own filings. The annual report on Form 10-K for 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 2 March 2026, says in a risk factor: "We also sell certain products or merchandise labeled with an American flag even though they are not made in the United States, such as our coffee, which is roasted in the United States but sourced in traditional coffee growing regions, such as Latin America. A customer filed a class action suit over misleading 'Made in USA' claims, which could harm our business and brand reputation whether or not they are successful." The same passage says that an adverse ruling or enforcement action finding its branding misleading could harm its marketing and brand. The legal proceedings item of that report describes three other disputes and does not describe the Black Rifle Coffee lawsuit.

The company's reports also describe how it sources and roasts. The annual report says that "the majority of our green coffee beans come from Colombia, Brazil, and Nicaragua", that since 2020 it has also sourced beans from more than ten additional countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and that "all of our bagged coffee is roasted in the United States". The 10-Q filed on 3 August 2026 for the quarter ended 30 June 2026 repeats the sourcing sentence. Those are statements about where the beans come from. Whether the packaging amounts to a claim about where they come from is the legal question in the case.

The quarterly report is general about litigation. It says the company is the subject of legal actions in the ordinary course of business and that it does not believe any of them, "individually or in the aggregate", would be expected to have a material adverse effect on its results, cash flows or financial condition. Its Note 8 describes a settled contract suit by warrant holders and a co-manufacturer's contract suit in a Kansas state court, and does not describe the Bakker case. The papers the defendants filed in court, which would state their own position on the claim, were not retrieved for this page, so this page does not summarize what the motions argue.

What a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike decide

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) asks the court to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". The court takes the facts in the complaint as true for that purpose and asks whether they add up to a legal claim, so it decides nothing about whether the allegations are correct. A motion to strike under Rule 12(f) asks the court to strike from a pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter". In the Black Rifle Coffee lawsuit both were filed together on 9 January 2026, and both are listed on the docket as motions 14 and 15.

Rule 15 shapes what can follow. A plaintiff may amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a Rule 12(b) motion (Rule 15(a)(1)(B)), and after that only with consent or the court's leave, which the court "should freely give ... when justice so requires" (Rule 15(a)(2)). Plaintiffs can answer a motion to dismiss with an opposition, an amended complaint, or both, and the docket entries retrieved record the opposition, filed on 30 January 2026, and no amended complaint.

If the court grants the motion in whole or in part, it may do so with leave to amend, and an amended complaint would restart the cycle with a new motion. If it denies the motion, the defendants answer, the court sets a schedule, and discovery begins. The Federal Judicial Center advises judges that the most efficient practice is to rule on motions to dismiss before addressing class certification, which is why a certification motion, if one comes, would follow the ruling. Two other cases on this tracker show how a motion at this stage can end a case: the Eargo securities case was dismissed on 31 August 2023 and the Silverback Therapeutics case on 12 April 2023.

The local procedure matters for timing. The minute order of 3 March 2026 (entry 29) says that "pursuant to Local Rule 230(g)" the pending motions "are SUBMITTED without oral argument", that the hearing set for 6 April 2026 is vacated, and that it may be reset "if the court determines that oral argument is needed". The order does not say when the judge will rule.

Other Black Rifle Coffee cases

Anyone looking for a Black Rifle Coffee class action lawsuit will find only this one on the tracker, Bakker v. Black Rifle Coffee, and it is the only consumer class action involving the company listed here. A separate individual contract case in a Utah state court, brought by a former employee, is listed under Roper v. Black Rifle Coffee. The annual report for 2025 describes other commercial disputes with a consultant, a warrant holder and a co-manufacturer, and none of them is a consumer class action.

What the docket does not show

The docket as retrieved shows no ruling on either motion, no amended complaint, no answer and no order dismissing or striking anything. The newest entry is dated 12 June 2026, which leaves about 19 weeks of the court's calendar unseen in this copy, and the motions have been submitted since 3 March 2026, so a ruling is possible at any point and may already exist.

The docket also does not show the text of the motions, the oppositions or the replies, because those documents were not available in the copy retrieved, and the minute entries do not describe the arguments. It does not show a motion for class certification, an answer, a scheduling order (on 24 February 2026, entry 28, the court said it would not issue one while the motions were pending and vacated the initial scheduling conference set for 9 March), any discovery dispute or any settlement discussion beyond a joint status report filed on 23 February 2026, whose contents are not on the docket page.

It cannot show the facts behind the claim either. The complaint's account of how coffee is grown and processed, the company's account of where it sources its beans, and what a reasonable shopper takes from a flag and a slogan are all matters a court has not reached. And a docket mirror is not the court's record: CourtListener's copy of a federal docket depends on what has been contributed to it, and the court's own electronic system is the authority for the newest entries.

The one date the docket still carries from the original schedule is the hearing the court vacated: motions 14 and 15 had been set for 6 April 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4, to be reset only if the judge decides oral argument is needed (entry 29).