The 100% Agave Tequila Lawsuits, Explained

What the tests are looking for, which kinds of mixing are allowed, and where the cases stand for Casamigos, Don Julio, 818, Cincoro, Lunazul, Teremana and Kirkland Signature.

October 1, 2026: Diageo won dismissal of the Pusateri lawsuit over Casamigos and Don Julio. The judge found too little evidence connecting the alleged problem to the buyers bringing the case. Whether the tested tequila contained non-agave alcohol remains unanswered by that ruling. Read the Casamigos and Don Julio case update.

Buyers of 100% agave tequila are paying for a clear promise: the sugars fermented to make its alcohol came from Blue Weber agave. Several US lawsuits allege that well-known brands broke that promise by selling tequila containing alcohol from other plants.

Diageo denies the allegations about Casamigos and Don Julio. Its September 30, 2026 court victory ended one lawsuit before the judge decided what was in the bottles. Other brands face separate cases, with different outcomes and gaps in the available records. September 30 court order.

If reliable tests on genuine bottles establish substantial non-agave alcohol, the consequences would be serious. Buyers would have received something different from the tequila on the label. The way that alcohol entered the bottle would determine whether the product failed the 100% agave requirement or the rules for tequila altogether.

See where the lawsuits stand for each brand.

What the buyers say the tests found

In the Casamigos and Don Julio case, the buyers commissioned tests after earlier testing by the Additive Free Alliance raised concerns. The September 30 order identifies five samples: Casamigos Blanco, Reposado and Añejo; Don Julio Reposado; and Don Julio 1942 Añejo. According to the complaint summarized in the order, the tests indicated that the alcohol in those samples was not entirely from agave. Diageo disputes that allegation. Court order, pages 3–4.

The buyers argued that a shared base spirit meant the problem extended across the brands. That wider claim became central to the dismissal: the judge found too little detail about production and too little connection between the tested samples and the purchases at issue. The order describes the alleged result in words; it gives no non-agave percentage for each sample.

Where the lawsuits stand for each brand

Diageo won the Casamigos and Don Julio case called Pusateri. The wider dispute continues. A brand can win one case while another remains unresolved. A buyer withdrawing a lawsuit also leaves a different result from a judge finding that the label was accurate.

The table gives the position supported by records available on October 1, 2026. Some records end months earlier; those later outcomes remain unknown. For 818, Cincoro, Lunazul, Teremana and Kirkland Signature, the case summaries used here leave the complete list of tested products and lots unclear. Being named here does not mean every bottle from a brand was tested.

“With prejudice” generally prevents the withdrawn claims from being brought again; “without prejudice” leaves room to bring them again if the legal requirements are met. Justia’s public dockets can lag behind the courts.

The sugar allowance comes before fermentation

Mexico’s tequila standard, NOM-006-SCFI-2012, distinguishes 100% agave tequila, whose fermentation sugars must all come from the specified Blue Weber agave, from ordinary tequila, often called mixto, which allows some other sugars.

For example, in a mixture containing 100 kg of total reducing sugars, ordinary tequila requires at least 51 kg from the specified agave. Up to 49 kg can come from other permitted sources. Those sugars are fermented together, then distilled. To qualify as 100% agave, all 100 kg must come from that agave. Other agave species cannot supply the 49% allowance. NOM-006, sections 4.17, 5.1 and 6.3.

These are shares of the sugars by weight before fermentation. The amount of water in a bottle and its alcohol by volume, or ABV, measure different things.

Hot mixing combines sugars before fermentation

Hot mixing means combining agave sugars with other sugars before fermentation. The mixture is fermented together and then distilled. The NOM calls the preparation of this mixture formulation.

Ordinary tequila permits this within the 51/49 sugar limits. A 100% agave tequila cannot use the other-sugar allowance. NOM-006, sections 4.17, 5.1 and 6.3.

Cold mixing adds separately made alcohol

Cold mixing means blending tequila with a different alcoholic product, such as separately made cane alcohol. Neither tequila category allows the addition of non-tequila alcohol. Combining 51% tequila with 49% neutral spirit would not make legal mixto.

The NOM’s prohibition covers adding another alcoholic product at any production stage, including the finished spirit. NOM-006, sections 4.26 and 6.3.

Finishing ingredients have their own rules

100% agave does not automatically mean additive-free. Water used to adjust strength and ingredients used to change flavor or appearance have separate rules.

The standard names caramel color, natural oak extract, glycerin and sugar-based syrup as ingredients for abocado, or mellowing. It sets a 1% weight limit for those abocantes. Other permitted flavorings, colors and sweeteners have separate composition and labeling provisions. The 1% rule is therefore not a blanket allowance for everything a producer might add. NOM-006, sections 4.1 and 6.1.1.1; labeling amendment, section 11.1(c).

Permission to sweeten or mellow tequila does not authorize replacing its alcohol with cane spirit. That distinction matters because these lawsuits challenge the source of the alcohol itself. US tequila rules also require the spirit to comply with Mexico’s production rules. 27 CFR 5.148.

The tests ask which plant supplied the alcohol

Fermentation turns plant sugars into ethanol, the alcohol in tequila. Ethanol has the same basic chemical structure whether it comes from agave, cane or corn. The clue to its origin is the small, naturally occurring variation in heavier and lighter forms of its atoms, called isotopes.

An isotope test measures those variations and compares the result with authentic reference samples. Eurofins describes that comparison as a central part of interpreting SNIF-NMR measurements. A useful reference collection needs to cover the natural variation in the products being tested. Eurofins technical explanation.

For agave, cane and corn, the overall carbon-isotope averages can overlap. Carbon-13 SNIF-NMR looks at ethanol’s two carbon positions separately. That extra detail can help distinguish origins that look similar in an overall measurement. Thomas and colleagues demonstrated this approach in research published in 2010. Thomas et al., abstract.

Finding another plant’s alcohol does not show when it was added

A result indicating non-agave alcohol would raise a direct problem for a 100% agave claim. It would still leave a production question: were other sugars fermented with the agave, or was separately made alcohol added later? Establishing cold mixing requires evidence about that process as well as the alcohol’s origin.

A precise percentage needs more support than a finding that a sample falls outside the expected agave pattern. The lab must explain its reference samples, calculations and margin of error. The full signed reports, raw measurements and calibration records behind these lawsuits are not available in the sources used here. A bottle-by-bottle estimate of non-agave alcohol would need those records.

Why the Casamigos and Don Julio buyers lost the first case

The buyers had to connect the alleged mislabeling to their own financial loss. In this case, that was the issue behind the legal requirement called standing. Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall found insufficient links between the test results and the purchases for which they sought compensation. The complaint also lacked enough information about when and where the samples were bought, and about production, to support its broader claim. Court order, pages 6–10.

Our Casamigos and Don Julio case update explains the ruling and the parties’ responses. For background on the brands and their ranges, see our Casamigos guide and Don Julio guide.

If the tests hold up, the label promise has failed

If genuine, correctly handled bottles sold as 100% agave contain substantial non-agave alcohol, buyers have been sold a product that fails its central promise. A court dismissal over who can sue would not make that liquid match its label.

There are two possible failures. If non-agave sugars were fermented with agave, a product might qualify as ordinary tequila only if it met the 51% minimum and all other rules. Selling it as 100% agave would still misrepresent it. If separately made cane or corn alcohol was blended in, the cold-mixing prohibition would mean the resulting product failed the rules for tequila itself.

If substitution were repeated across lots and markets, the implications would extend well beyond a few refunds. Brands could be collecting a premium for agave while using less of it. Growers would lose demand for their crop, and producers buying the required agave would face competition from cheaper, noncompliant production. The savings would come at the expense of the very ingredient used to justify the price.

That would also be a serious test of certification. Widespread substitution passing through a certified supply chain would point to a failure of its checks. The next question would be where those checks failed and who knew. Bottle tests alone cannot establish anyone’s knowledge or intent, or show how widely a problem extends.

Our view is that repeatable results from identified retail lots would deserve a direct, public answer from the brands and the Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT), or Tequila Regulatory Council, which certifies compliance with the tequila standard. CRT certification role. Buyers should be able to see why a disputed bottle passed or failed, with the test method and production records explained in terms they can understand.

What Diageo, the CRT and growers say

Diageo welcomed the Casamigos and Don Julio dismissal and called the allegations baseless. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Steve Berman disputed the judge’s account and said they might seek reconsideration, Reuters reported on October 1. Reuters.

Earlier, Diageo executive Sophie Kelly described company supervision of agave harvesting and transport alongside CRT oversight. A CRT spokesperson described access to producers, inspections, document checks, sampling and laboratory analysis. Food & Wine, March 22, 2026.

Certification does include physical checks. The NOM requires ongoing verification and laboratory testing, and the CRT’s export process records brands, categories, classes and bottled lots. Those records should help trace a disputed bottle back through its shipment and production. NOM-006, sections 8.5 and 9, CRT certification procedures.

Growers have pressed for answers too. In October 2025, Mezcalistas reported farmer representative Remberto Galván Cabrera’s account of witnessed bottle purchases and testing by Eurofins. His group also sought an investigation of the CRT. The account gives more detail about sample handling, though the underlying records remain unavailable in the sources used here. Mezcalistas, October 17, 2025.

The next useful evidence would follow the same bottles

A receipt, lot code, purchase date, store and handling record would connect a sample to a real sale. The bottle’s NOM number identifies the authorized producer; the lot code narrows the inquiry to a particular batch. Those details would help laboratories and producers compare like with like.

The most persuasive next step would be for independent labs to test retained portions of the same sample without being told the expected result. Their reports should explain the method, relevant reference samples and uncertainty. Testing more lots, dates and markets would then show whether an apparent problem was isolated or widespread.

Production records would address the question a bottle test leaves open: how did the alcohol get there? Bringing those records together would give buyers a much clearer answer than another general denial or accusation.

Questions buyers are asking

Does the Diageo dismissal prove Casamigos and Don Julio are 100% agave?

No. The September 30, 2026 dismissal of Pusateri, the Casamigos and Don Julio case, concerned the buyers’ ability to sue. It left the bottles’ chemical composition undecided. Court order.

Can ordinary tequila legally contain alcohol from other sugars?

Yes. Ordinary tequila may use up to 49% permitted non-agave sugars by mass of total reducing sugars before fermentation. It must have at least 51% from the specified Blue Weber agave. Adding separately made non-tequila alcohol is prohibited. NOM-006, sections 5.1 and 6.3.

What is the difference between hot and cold mixing in tequila?

Hot mixing combines sugars before fermentation; the combined sugars are then fermented and distilled. Cold mixing blends in separately made non-tequila alcohol. Ordinary tequila permits hot mixing within its 51/49 sugar limits. Adding non-tequila alcohol is prohibited in ordinary and 100% agave tequila. NOM-006, sections 4.17, 4.26, 5.1 and 6.3.

Can the tequila lawsuits tell me whether my own bottle is affected?

No. A tequila brand’s involvement in a lawsuit does not establish what is in your bottle. Connecting a result to an individual purchase requires details such as the exact product, lot code, purchase date and store, alongside testing and handling records. A receipt and lot code help identify a bottle; they cannot establish its alcohol’s origin on their own.

Can taste reveal whether tequila contains cane alcohol?

No. A sweet or smooth taste cannot tell you which plant supplied the ethanol. The tests discussed here examine isotope patterns in the alcohol; taste is not a substitute for that measurement.

Sources and dates

The Casamigos and Don Julio ruling is the September 30, 2026 memorandum and order in Pusateri et al. v. Diageo North America, E.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-02482-LDH-CHK, document 46. Page references use the order’s printed pagination. The case table links to each court record or attributed report and shows where later developments remain unknown.

The regulatory explanation uses the official Spanish NOM and its December 2012 amendment. Mexico’s Economy Ministry lists NOM-006-SCFI-2012 as in force. The 2010 Thomas paper was read through its available abstract. Eurofins’ brochure explains reference comparisons using hydrogen-isotope SNIF-NMR; the carbon-13 distinction comes from Thomas and colleagues.

Sources were checked October 1, 2026. Statements are attributed to the publications that obtained them; this article contains no new interviews. The discussion of what confirmed substitution would mean is Spirited Agave’s analysis of the rules and allegations.