A Brooklyn judge found too little evidence connecting five tested samples to the buyers’ claimed losses. The September 30 ruling left the tequila’s disputed composition undecided.
Case update: October 1, 2026
Diageo has won dismissal of a US lawsuit alleging that Casamigos and Don Julio tequilas were falsely labeled as 100% agave. On September 30, 2026, US District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall ruled that the buyers had not established that the alleged mislabeling caused their claimed financial loss.
The case, Pusateri et al. v. Diageo North America, challenged the source of the alcohol in those two brands. The buyers said commissioned tests indicated that the alcohol in five samples was not entirely from agave: Casamigos Blanco, Reposado and Añejo; Don Julio Reposado; and Don Julio 1942 Añejo. They argued that a shared base spirit meant the problem extended more widely. Diageo denies the allegations. September 30 court order, pages 3–4.
The ruling ended Pusateri. Related Brooklyn cases had been paused awaiting this decision, Reuters reported on October 1. Our brand-by-brand lawsuit table sets out the wider position, including cases involving 818, Cincoro, Lunazul, Teremana and Kirkland Signature.
The buyers had to connect the test results to their own losses
The buyers’ argument was straightforward: they paid for 100% agave tequila and would not have made those purchases had they known it contained alcohol from other plants. To pursue the claim in federal court, they needed to establish that they had suffered the alleged financial loss. That was the issue behind the legal requirement called standing.
The complaint described samples bought for commissioned testing, but Hall found that it had not adequately linked the alleged problem to the purchases for which the buyers sought compensation. Order, pages 3 and 5–7.
The buyers’ alternative argument was that mislabeling was so widespread that their purchases were affected too. Hall found too little information connecting the samples and purchases by time and place. The complaint also relied on a uniform production process that it had not actually described. Five samples could not support that broad claim on the information presented. Order, pages 8–10.
The judge left the testing dispute open
The disputed tests seek to identify which plants supplied the alcohol. Carbon-13 SNIF-NMR examines patterns at ethanol’s two carbon positions, which can help distinguish agave from cane and corn where overall measurements look similar. Our illustrated explanation of the tests shows why that extra detail and authentic reference samples matter.
Hall distinguished a challenge to the scientific method from a challenge to sample size. Her decision addressed these buyers’ ability to bring the claim, leaving the accuracy of the reported measurements unresolved. Order, page 10.
Diageo welcomed the decision; the buyers may challenge it
Diageo called the allegations baseless and stood behind its products, Reuters reported on October 1. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Steve Berman disputed the judge’s account of the record and said they might seek reconsideration. Later filings would establish whether they take that step and how the related cases proceed. Reuters.
The 49% allowance would not excuse these allegations
Ordinary tequila, often called mixto, may use up to 49% permitted non-agave sugars, measured by mass of total reducing sugars before fermentation; at least 51% must come from the specified Blue Weber agave. That allowance does not apply to tequila labeled 100% agave. Hot mixing combines those sugars before they ferment together and are distilled. Cold mixing adds separately made non-tequila alcohol, such as cane spirit, and is prohibited in both categories at every production stage. The full explanation of sugar and mixing rules illustrates the limits and distinguishes them from finishing ingredients. NOM-006, sections 4.17, 4.26, 5.1 and 6.3.
If the tests are right, the label promise has failed
If reliable testing establishes substantial non-agave alcohol in genuine Casamigos or Don Julio bottles sold as 100% agave, those bottles failed the promise buyers paid for. Diageo’s legal victory would not change that.
The production route would then matter. Fermenting other sugars with agave could produce ordinary tequila within its limits, but would breach a 100% agave claim. Adding separately made non-tequila alcohol would fail the mixing rules for tequila itself. An origin test alone cannot establish which route was used.
The useful next evidence would be repeatable tests tied to identifiable purchases and lots, alongside the corresponding production records. Those could answer the consumer question that remains after this dismissal: what was actually in the disputed bottles?
Sources and dates
This account concerns the September 30, 2026 Casamigos and Don Julio decision 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. Reactions and the report of related cases being paused come from Reuters’ October 1 article. Later court developments are outside this dated account. The discussion of what confirmed substitution would mean is Spirited Agave’s analysis, conditional on the tests holding up.
1 thought on “Diageo Wins Dismissal of Casamigos and Don Julio Labeling Case”