Premier Nutrition’s “Joint Juice” glucosamine drinks have been marketed as supporting joint comfort, flexibility, and mobility—claims that matter to a large audience of consumers seeking over-the-counter help for arthritis and everyday joint pain. Two related class actions—*Montera v. Premier Nutrition* (covering New York purchases) and *Bland v. Premier Nutrition* (covering purchases in CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MI, and PA)—challenge whether those advertised benefits were substantiated, and they have produced proposed settlements totaling $90 million ($19.16M for New York and $70.84M for the multi-state group). If approved, eligible buyers can submit claims by May 15, 2026, with no proof of purchase required for up to six units (proof generally required above that), and some consumers may receive “direct” payments based on retailer records. The lawsuits were filed because plaintiffs allege the products were falsely or deceptively advertised—essentially arguing that consumers paid a premium for promised joint-health effects that were not adequately supported. The significance of the settlements is both financial and practical: they offer refunds (estimated around ~$50 per unit in the New York case and $10–$25 per unit depending on product category in the multi-state case) while allowing the company to deny wrongdoing and avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. They also illustrate how class actions can function as a consumer remedy in situations where individual losses may be too small to justify separate lawsuits, and they highlight the importance of claim substantiation when marketing supplements and functional beverages. More broadly, these cases fit a familiar pattern in the supplement and “wellness” marketplace, where joint-health ingredients like glucosamine and similar compounds are frequently promoted with implied therapeutic outcomes. In the U.S., such products are typically regulated as dietary supplements under DSHEA and overseen through a mix of FDA rules (including labeling and limits on disease-treatment claims) and FTC standards requiring that advertising be truthful and backed by “competent and reliable scientific evidence.” Similar consumer class actions have targeted a wide range of products—especially those making performance or health-benefit promises—often focusing less on whether an ingredient has any effect in general and more on whether the specific product’s marketing overstates what typical consumers can expect based on the available evidence.