TL;DR: A new federal class action accuses Black Rifle Coffee Company of cashing in on patriotism by branding its imported coffee as “America’s Coffee” and splashing the American flag across its bags, even though the beans are grown and processed abroad.
The legal complaint says the company charges a premium based on that image, while everyday buyers in California and New York pay extra for coffee they believe is made in the United States. The lawsuit seeks to claw back those dollars and force honest labeling.
Keep reading for how this kind of branding game reflects a deeper pattern in neoliberal capitalism, where corporations turn national pride into a business model and regulators struggle to keep pace.
And look, I’m not the biggest fan of the type of people who are most likely to buy Black Rifle Coffee, but this is still an important story to get out into the ether. We need class consciousness in this country and can’t afford to be divided on political lines.
Table of Contents
- Patriotism on the Label, Imports in the Bag
- Corporate Misconduct and Consumer Harm
- Regulatory Loopholes and Weak Oversight in a Neoliberal Market
- Profit-Maximization at All Costs: Turning Patriotism into a Price Premium
- Economic Fallout for Consumers and Honest Producers
- The PR Machine and the Fine Print
- Legal Minimalism: Doing the Bare Minimum for “Corporate Ethics”
- How Capitalism Uses Time and Delay
- Corporate Accountability and the Limits of Consumer Law
- This Is the System Working as Intended
- Conclusion: Beyond One Bag of Coffee
- Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
Patriotism on the Label, Imports in the Bag
On store shelves across the country, Black Rifle Coffee bags carry a bold promise. The front labels declare “America’s Coffee” and feature a prominent American flag. For many shoppers, that message signals more than a flavor profile. It signals a product made in the United States, from the beans themselves to the work that brings the coffee to the kitchen counter.
According to a new federal class action, that impression breaks down as soon as you follow the supply chain. The complaint says none of Black Rifle’s coffee is grown or produced in the United States.
The beans are sourced and processed abroad, then shipped into the U.S. only after they have undergone a long, labor-intensive transformation from fruit to dried green beans. The company roasts and bags those imported beans domestically and sells them at scale through retailers like Walmart, Safeway, Kroger, Target, and others, while trading on patriotic branding and a stock listing on the New York Stock Exchange with a market capitalization over $370 million.
The lawsuit frames this as a simple story: a company marketing “America’s Coffee” while selling foreign-made coffee to Americans who pay more because they believe they are supporting American production.
Corporate Misconduct and Consumer Harm
The complaint centers on a straightforward claim. The plaintiffs say Black Rifle’s use of the slogan “America’s Coffee” and the large American flag on the front of its bags amounts to a “Made in USA” message. The plaintiffs argue that this message is false because:
- All of the coffee beans are sourced from outside the United States.
- The long, complex process that turns coffee cherries into dried green beans happens entirely abroad.
- Only roasting and bagging occur in the United States!
The plaintiffs (people filing the lawsuit) describe a common understanding among shoppers. When a product carries U.S.-centric slogans and imagery, everyday consumers often assume that the product is made in the United States, or at least that “all or virtually all” of the product is of U.S. origin.
The lawsuit says Black Rifle exploits this understanding and uses patriotic branding to raise demand and support a price premium on its coffee.
Two named plaintiffs anchor the case:
- Justin Bakker, a California resident, bought Black Rifle coffee regularly until about February 2025. He purchased bags like “Wakin the Neighbors” and “Spirit of ’76” from Save Mart and Safeway in Turlock and Merced. He says he relied on the “America’s Coffee” slogan and the flag, believed the coffee was produced in the United States, and paid more on that basis.
- Noah Lundgren, a New York resident, purchased a “Tactisquatch” bag at Walmart in Kingston on or around June 28, 2025. He similarly says the slogan and flag led him to believe the coffee was all or virtually all produced in the United States and that this belief shaped his decision to buy and the price he was willing to pay.
Both plaintiffs describe themselves as people who try to “shop American” and who will sometimes choose and pay more for products they believe are made in the United States. They say they would have paid less or chosen a different brand if they had known the beans were foreign-grown and foreign-processed.
Timeline of Key Events in the Black Rifle Coffee Case
| Date / Period | Event |
|---|---|
| Up to ~February 2025 | Bakker regularly buys Black Rifle coffee in California, relying on “America’s Coffee” label. |
| June 28, 2025 | Lundgren buys a “Tactisquatch” bag at Walmart in Kingston, New York. |
| September 11, 2025 | Plaintiffs’ counsel sends a demand letter under California’s consumer law to Black Rifle. |
| October 3, 2025 | Black Rifle’s in-house counsel responds with a one-word email: “No,” declining discussions. |
| November 3, 2025 | Plaintiffs file a federal class action in the Eastern District of California. |
The legal complaint describes this as a nationwide pattern, with Black Rifle coffee bags carrying similar front-label designs that pair “America’s Coffee” with an American flag across multiple product lines.
Regulatory Loopholes and Weak Oversight in a Neoliberal Market
The lawsuit leans heavily on consumer protection laws that try to restrain deceptive branding. California prohibits unqualified “Made in USA” claims when a product is “entirely or substantially” made, manufactured, or produced outside the United States. The complaint argues that the slogan “America’s Coffee” plus the flag sits squarely in that category because the core of the product (the beans and their transformation from fruit to export-ready green coffee) is foreign.
The plaintiffs also cite federal standards that treat “Made in USA” as more than a phrase. Federal guidance treats images like the American flag and general references to America as implied origin claims. According to the complaint, the combination of the flag and “America’s Coffee” sends a clear message to a reasonable consumer: this coffee is of U.S. origin.
In New York, consumer laws do not target “Made in USA” wording directly. They focus instead on deceptive practices and false advertising. The complaint uses federal “Made in USA” rules as a benchmark and argues that Black Rifle’s branding crosses the line into deception because the actual origin of the beans and processing remains foreign.
This kind of legal architecture reflects a broader neoliberal pattern. Rules exist on paper. Enforcement relies on consumers, under-resourced regulators, and lawsuits after the fact. Corporations move quickly, build brands around national symbols, and treat compliance as a minimum box to check.
The lawsuit says Black Rifle buries a quiet reference on the side of the bag that the coffee is roasted in the United States, while the front label carries the flag and the “America’s Coffee” claim. That design choice fits a playbook in which visible branding leans on patriotism and the clarifying detail hides in fine print.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs: Turning Patriotism into a Price Premium
The complaint describes a clear economic motive. Many consumers seek out American-made products and are willing to pay more for them. The plaintiffs say Black Rifle uses that preference as a revenue strategy. The “America’s Coffee” slogan and the flag help the company charge a premium and raise demand for its coffee.
In a neoliberal economy, corporate leaders face constant pressure to deliver growth and protect shareholder value. Patriotism becomes a marketing asset. The lawsuit suggests that Black Rifle treats the idea of “American coffee” as a brand promise, even when the beans originate abroad and undergo their core transformation in foreign facilities. Roasting and bagging become the visible American steps. The much longer and more labor-intensive stages—planting, growing, harvesting, pulping, fermenting, drying, milling, sorting—play out overseas, far from the consumer’s eye.
The plaintiffs argue that this mismatch between image and reality has a real price. Buyers like Bakker and Lundgren pay more because they think they are choosing American-produced coffee. The complaint frames that extra payment as an economic injury and a transfer of value from working consumers to a coffee company already valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars!
Economic Fallout for Consumers and Honest Producers
The immediate financial harm in this case is simple. The plaintiffs say they overpaid for each bag of coffee. They describe that harm as the difference between what they paid and what the product was actually worth once the truth about origin becomes clear. For individual shoppers, that difference can feel small on a single purchase, yet the complaint points to “tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands” of buyers in California and New York combined. Scaled across those purchases, the economic fallout becomes substantial.
The legal complaint also highlights a broader effect that reaches beyond this single brand. Lawmakers at the state and federal level have treated honest “Made in USA” claims as important for both consumers and domestic manufacturers.
When a company like Black Rifle Company markets a product as American-made while relying on foreign production, it undercuts producers that genuinely invest in U.S. growing and processing and that follow origin rules closely. The complaint describes deceptive origin claims as a practice that harms both consumers and American manufacturers and provides no public benefit.
In a neoliberal framework, consumers carry the burden of “voting with their dollars” and sorting through aggressive branding. When companies blur the line around origin and regulators step in only after complaints pile up, shoppers lose both money and confidence in the marketplace.
The PR Machine and the Fine Print
The complaint points to the packaging itself as a form of public relations. The front label steps forward with patriotic imagery and bold claims. The side of the bag includes smaller language that concedes a more limited role: the company roasts its coffee in the United States. The plaintiffs describe this as a deliberate layout. The big promise sits on the front. The narrower truth hides on the side.
This structure mirrors broader corporate spin tactics. Bold slogans and flags convey “corporate social responsibility” and national alignment. Technical qualifications appear only where regulators might look. The complaint says Black Rifle’s front-of-bag message fits the definition of an unqualified U.S.-origin claim, while the faint side text functions as a shield if the company faces questions.
In a media environment flooded with branding, these design choices matter. Many shoppers never turn the bag or study the fine print. They respond to the main label, the slogan, the imagery, and the story that a brand sells about itself.
Legal Minimalism: Doing the Bare Minimum for “Corporate Ethics”
The complaint walks through California’s “Made in USA” law and its safe harbors. The statute allows up to 5 percent foreign content in some cases and up to 10 percent in specific situations where domestic sourcing is impossible. The plaintiffs argue that Black Rifle’s coffee fails those thresholds easily:
- Coffee beans make up far more than 5 or 10 percent of the wholesale value of a bag of coffee.
- Coffee can be grown and processed in the United States, including in places like Hawaii.
- Black Rifle does not use U.S.-grown beans and instead sources entirely abroad.
The complaint portrays a company that treats the law as a line to dance around. The beans and the main processing work stay overseas. The company highlights the American parts of its operation and its identity. It uses “America’s Coffee” in large type, pairs that slogan with a flag, and then adds a quiet reference to U.S. roasting on the side panel.
This approach reflects a broader pattern in late-stage capitalism. Corporations aim to comply with the form of regulation just enough to defend their position, while their branding and operational choices push as close to the edge as possible. Moral responsibility becomes secondary to legal minimalism. Compliance reads as a marketing angle rather than a basic duty to customers.
How Capitalism Uses Time and Delay
The timeline in this case shows how time itself becomes a corporate resource. On September 11, 2025, the plaintiffs sent a formal demand letter under California’s consumer protection statute, which gives companies a chance to correct alleged violations before a lawsuit. On October 3, 2025, Black Rifle’s in-house counsel responded with a one-word answer: “No.” The complaint says the company did not take corrective action after that response and did not revise its labeling before the November 3, 2025 filing date.
In a neoliberal system, legal procedures often move slowly. Corporations can keep using contested branding while disputes move through demand letters, negotiations, and litigation. A company can spend months or years extracting value from disputed practices. Even if it eventually pays damages or agrees to a settlement, the interim period can function as a profitable window.
The complaint presents this dispute as a clear example. The plaintiffs describe ongoing deception, ongoing sales, and ongoing harm while they seek court orders to stop the conduct. Time becomes another tool in the corporate toolkit, and delay becomes a feature of the system rather than a flaw.
Corporate Accountability and the Limits of Consumer Law
The lawsuit seeks broad relief: damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and injunctions that would bar Black Rifle from continuing its current branding. The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the company’s past and ongoing conduct unlawful, to force a change in labeling, and to award money to the affected classes in California and New York.
The complaint also emphasizes public injunctive relief. The plaintiffs argue that the problem extends beyond their own purchases and that deceptive origin claims harm the general public. They say Black Rifle’s marketing continues and that they cannot trust the company’s future statements without a court order.
This framing exposes a key feature of corporate accountability under neoliberal capitalism. Most enforcement of consumer protection laws relies on either under-funded agencies or private lawsuits brought by individuals and class counsel. Corporations can expand, list on stock exchanges, and shape national branding campaigns long before anyone tests their claims in court. Accountability often arrives slowly and unevenly, if at all.
This Is the System Working as Intended
This lawsuit does more than challenge one coffee company’s label. It illustrates how a capitalist system built on deregulation and privatized enforcement naturally produces these outcomes.
- Patriotism becomes a market segment.
- “Corporate ethics” becomes a branding choice.
- Legal standards for “Made in USA” sit on the books while companies stretch them through creative packaging and fine print.
- Consumers shoulder the burden of spotting deception and fighting back through courts.
The lawsuit describes everyday shoppers in California and New York who try to support American production. They pay more because they trust a message on a bag. That trust feeds a company valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, while the core production work happens overseas.
This is not a bug. It is a predictable result of a system in which profit sits at the top of the hierarchy and enforcement of corporate promises depends on after-the-fact legal campaigns.
đź’ˇ Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
NOTE:
This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:
- The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
- Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
- The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
- My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.
All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.
Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)
Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....
