When a viral drink brand cools off, someone is often left holding the bill for a factory line built to make it. This is the story of who — a bottler that says it invested millions, then got left with an empty production line.
Contested Allegations · No Liability Found
This article describes an ongoing business dispute. Refresco's damages figure and its account of the contract are allegations in a complaint; Congo Brands denies that a binding agreement was executed. No court has found Congo liable, and the revenue and sales-decline figures cited below are trade-press estimates attributed to reporting, not audited company disclosures. This is not a class action and there is nothing to claim.
What Is This About?
PRIME, the hydration and energy drink co-founded by YouTube stars Logan Paul and KSI, was one of the fastest-rising beverage brands of the decade. But explosive growth left a question when demand cooled: what happens to the manufacturing capacity built to keep up? That question is at the heart of a roughly $68 million lawsuit.The plaintiff is Refresco Beverages US Inc., a large independent contract bottler that makes drinks on a for-hire basis for brand owners. In August 2024, Refresco sued Congo Brands Procurement LLC — the Louisville operating company behind PRIME, with Prime Hydration LLC named as an affiliate — for breach of contract. The original case, Refresco Beverages US Inc. v. Congo Brands Procurement LLC, et al., No. 2024-0819-MTZ, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The core allegation: Congo committed to a large, multi-year production deal, Refresco built a dedicated line for it, and then Congo walked away before a single bottle ran.
The Deal at the Center: "Take-or-Pay"
According to Refresco's complaint as described in trade-press reporting, the parties entered a 2023 arrangement sometimes called the "Truesdale Agreement," after Refresco's plant in Truesdale, Missouri. Under it, Refresco would make an up-front investment in a new, dedicated production line tooled for PRIME's custom-shaped 16.9-ounce PET bottles — a line built specifically for this customer.In exchange, the complaint alleges, Congo committed to a minimum-volume, "take-or-pay" purchase obligation: buying at least 18.5 million 12-pack cases per year — roughly 55.5 million cases over three years — and paying a per-case shortfall fee if it failed to take delivery of at least 90% of that agreed annual volume. A take-or-pay term exists precisely to protect a supplier that sinks money into dedicated capacity: even if the buyer's demand falls, the buyer still has to pay for the guaranteed minimum. That is the mechanism Refresco says Congo agreed to and then avoided.
What Refresco Alleges Happened
Refresco's account is that it completed the dedicated-line equipment work around March 2024 — and that Congo then refused to participate in the final test run and submitted no commercial orders, before the line ever produced a bottle. The complaint attributes the pullback to PRIME's cooling sales, describing it as a product of seasonal declines and "the fading of the social media buzz" that had powered the brand's earlier surge.Trade-press coverage of the complaint cites a specific piece of alleged evidence: a March 20, 2024 email from a Congo external-manufacturing manager stating that "the decision was made to not move forward" with the Truesdale deal. All of this is Refresco's version, set out in its filings; it has not been established as fact, and the damages figure is what Refresco seeks, not what any court has awarded.
How Congo Brands Has Responded
Congo disputes the foundation of the claim. According to reporting, Congo has asserted that no binding master supply agreement for the Truesdale production was ever executed, and that any agreement in place had terminated under its own terms. In other words, Congo's position is not merely that it had good reasons to pull back, but that there was no enforceable minimum-volume contract to breach in the first place. No countersuit by Congo was identified in the reporting reviewed, and Congo has not been found liable.The Rise, Then the Cooldown
The backdrop is PRIME's remarkable trajectory. The brand is owned through Congo Brands, which holds a majority stake, with Logan Paul and KSI each holding a minority interest; Louisville-based Congo runs operations and distribution. After launching in early 2022, PRIME's reported revenue jumped from around $250 million in 2022 to roughly $1.2 billion in 2023 — the kind of curve that makes a company plan for enormous production capacity.Then 2024 brought a reversal. Reporting cited U.S. sales down sharply in the first half of the year and a steep drop in the U.K., with later projections well below the 2023 peak. These figures come from trade-press and market estimates rather than audited disclosures, so they should be read as attributed reporting — but they frame the commercial logic Refresco points to: a dedicated line sized for a boom, met by a bust.
From Chancery to Superior Court
The case's path through the Delaware courts is itself instructive. Refresco filed in the Court of Chancery, Delaware's famous business-equity court. But in January 2025, Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn dismissed it on jurisdictional grounds: Chancery handles equitable matters, and a straightforward claim for money damages generally has an adequate remedy "at law," meaning it belongs in a court of law, not equity. That dismissal was widely reported as a preliminary win for Prime — but it was a ruling about the forum, not about who was right on the contract.Refresco refiled in the Delaware Superior Court's Complex Commercial Litigation Division (No. N25C-02-503-EMD-CCLD). In August 2025, that court ruled on Congo's motion to dismiss: it let the breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims proceed and dismissed only a declaratory-judgment count as duplicative. So the substance of the fight survived and is now pending in Superior Court, with the central question — was there a binding, enforceable take-or-pay deal that Congo broke? — still to be answered.
Why It Matters Beyond Prime
This is not the only legal story attached to PRIME's founders or the brand: PRIME has separately faced consumer class-action litigation over its energy drink, and Logan Paul has his own docket, from the Coffeezilla defamation suit to the CryptoZoo class action. The Refresco case stands apart because it is a pure business dispute — a reminder that a viral brand's cooldown lands hardest not on the influencers out front, but on the suppliers who scaled up to meet a demand that didn't last.Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Refresco Prime Hydration lawsuit about?
Refresco, a large contract beverage bottler, sued Congo Brands — the company behind the PRIME drink brand, with Prime Hydration LLC named as an affiliate — for roughly $68 million. Refresco alleges it invested in a dedicated production line at its Truesdale, Missouri plant under a three-year supply agreement with a take-or-pay minimum-volume commitment, and that Congo then backed out without placing orders as Prime's sales cooled. Those are Refresco's allegations; no liability has been found.
What is a take-or-pay contract?
A take-or-pay clause requires a buyer to either purchase a minimum agreed quantity or pay a shortfall fee if it doesn't. Refresco alleges the deal required Congo to buy at least a set minimum of cases per year — reported as 18.5 million 12-pack cases annually — and to pay for the shortfall if it took delivery of less than 90% of that volume. These are the terms as described in Refresco's complaint.
How has Prime / Congo Brands responded?
Congo Brands disputes the core claim. According to reporting, it asserts that no binding master supply agreement for the Truesdale production was ever executed, and that any agreement had terminated under its own terms. No countersuit by Congo has been identified in the reporting reviewed. Congo has not been found liable, and it denies breaching a binding contract.
Where does the Refresco Prime lawsuit stand now?
Refresco first filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in August 2024, but that court dismissed the case in January 2025 on jurisdictional grounds — Chancery is a court of equity, and a money-damages contract claim generally belongs in a court of law. Refresco refiled in the Delaware Superior Court. In August 2025, that court denied dismissal of the breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims while dismissing a duplicative declaratory-judgment count. The case remains pending.
Is this a class action I can join?
No. This is a business-to-business contract dispute between a bottler and a beverage brand's parent company. It is not a class action, there is no settlement fund, and there is nothing for the public to claim.
Sources
• Bloomberg Law — bottler sues Prime's maker for $68 million (2024)• BevNET — the Truesdale line, take-or-pay terms, and the alleged March 2024 email
• Food Dive — the allegations and Congo's "no executed agreement" response
• Bloomberg Law — Chancery dismissal on jurisdictional grounds (Jan. 2025)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
