Fairlife milk suppliers face renewed animal cruelty investigation after undercover footage reveals dairy cows beaten, kicked, and abused in Arizona facilities that continue to operate despite previous multi-million dollar lawsuits for the same offenses.
Key Takeaways
- The Arizona Department of Agriculture is investigating Rainbow Valley Dairy and Butterfield Dairy for animal cruelty allegations after an Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) report documented abuse at these Fairlife milk suppliers.
- Fairlife, Coca-Cola, and Select Milk Producers face a federal false advertising complaint for deceptive marketing about humane treatment despite repeated documented abuse at supplier farms.
- The companies previously settled a $21 million lawsuit in 2022 over similar animal cruelty allegations, yet ARM investigations in 2024-2025 found ongoing systemic abuse at supplier farms.
- The current lawsuit also accuses Fairlife of “recycling fraud” for using non-recyclable opaque plastic bottles while marketing environmental sustainability.
- Despite these controversies, Fairlife’s sales continue to grow based on what critics call misleading marketing claims about animal welfare standards.
Repeat Offenders: Fairlife’s Disturbing Pattern of Animal Abuse
The Arizona Department of Agriculture has launched an investigation into two dairy farms supplying milk to Coca-Cola’s Fairlife brand following disturbing allegations of animal cruelty. Rainbow Valley Dairy and Butterfield Dairy came under scrutiny after the Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) published a damning report in February documenting systemic abuse of dairy cows. Deputy Director Sheldon Jones confirmed the investigation on June 17, though details remain limited due to the ongoing nature of the inquiry. This marks yet another chapter in Fairlife’s troubled history with animal welfare violations despite its marketing claims of superior treatment standards.
The current investigation follows ARM’s undercover work at Woodcrest Dairy in New Mexico and multiple Arizona facilities, where investigators documented workers kicking and beating cows, using chains to forcefully extract fetuses, and other egregious forms of abuse. These facilities continue to operate despite documented evidence of cruelty, raising serious questions about regulatory oversight in the dairy industry. Many consumers remain unaware that their “ethically produced” premium milk products come from farms with documented histories of animal welfare violations and systematic mistreatment of livestock.
Legal Troubles Mount for Coca-Cola’s Premium Milk Brand
A federal false advertising complaint has been filed against Fairlife, Coca-Cola, and Select Milk Producers, alleging fraud, deceptive marketing, and animal cruelty violations. This legal action comes just three years after the companies settled a previous lawsuit for $21 million over nearly identical allegations. The complaint centers on Fairlife’s continued marketing of “humane” and “exceptional” animal care standards while sourcing from farms where abuse has been repeatedly documented. Critics argue this represents a pattern of corporate deception rather than isolated incidents at supplier farms.
“From someone that’s a specialist in investigating cruelty in the dairy industry globally, Fairlife is top-tier, the worst offenders,” said Richard Couto, founder of Animal Recovery Mission.
The lawsuit further alleges that Fairlife has engaged in “recycling fraud” by using non-recyclable opaque plastic bottles while marketing environmental sustainability. Though Fairlife claims to have stopped sourcing from implicated dairies, the lawsuit contends that milk from these facilities continues to enter their supply chain through other channels. This raises concerns about transparency in the dairy supply chain and the ability of consumers to make truly informed purchasing decisions based on ethical considerations that many Americans value.
Corporate Response and Consumer Impact
Despite mounting evidence and legal challenges, Fairlife continues to defend its practices and animal welfare standards. The company has issued statements emphasizing its commitment to animal welfare while distancing itself from the documented abuses at supplier farms. However, critics argue that these responses represent corporate damage control rather than meaningful reform, especially as similar patterns of abuse continue to emerge years after initial exposés and legal settlements that should have prompted systemic changes.
“We are deeply committed to animal welfare and have zero tolerance for abuse. We work closely with our co-op partners to ensure the highest standards of care are consistently upheld across all their member farms that supply milk for Fairlife products,” stated by Fairlife.
Perhaps most troubling for consumers is that despite these controversies, Fairlife’s sales have continued to grow based on premium pricing and marketing claims that the lawsuit characterizes as fundamentally deceptive. The company commands higher prices based on promises of superior animal treatment and sustainability practices that investigators and legal complaints repeatedly challenge. This disconnect between marketing claims and documented reality raises important questions about corporate accountability and the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks in protecting both consumers and animals from exploitation.
“Is this what happens when a company is too big to fail? They feel like they can say whatever they want with impunity? Fairlife, true masters of consumer deception,” said Bobak Bakhtiari, attorney.
