Keurig Pod Case: What Goes to a Jury and What the Judge Tossed

Keurig’s long fight with Rogers Family Company is headed for a jury, and a new write-up from Gentleman’s Pursuits, syndicated on MSN, spells out which of the San Francisco Bay maker’s claims made it through and which ones the judge threw out.

Three sets of claims survived Judge Vernon Broderick’s Sept. 18 ruling, according to the piece, which leans on coverage from Global Competition Review and FoodBev. Rogers says Keurig used exclusive deals with roasters, suppliers and distributors to keep rival pods off shelves. It says Keurig tied its brewers to its own pods. And it says Keurig misled people about third-party pods. Per FoodBev’s account, the court found some of Keurig’s statements literally false, including claims that other brands’ pods could damage Keurig 2.0 brewers or weren’t safe. That’s a finding at this stage of the case, not a final judgment.

Keurig won some ground too. The piece says claims tied to its retail agreements, the 2.0 brewer redesign itself and earlier patent fights were dismissed, and Keurig said in a statement that it’s pleased the court tossed all antitrust claims based on the 2.0. The money figures all come from Rogers: about $390 million in potential antitrust damages before any tripling, plus roughly $109 million tied to the false advertising claims. Keurig disputes them, and no jury has weighed them.

There’s still no trial date. Rogers has asked for the case to go back to California, where it was first filed in 2014, and the piece notes the court sanctioned Keurig in July 2025 over evidence and data problems.

Our take: when we covered the ruling in October, we didn’t know the 2.0 redesign claims were gone. The part that will ring a bell for longtime owners is the false-advertising finding, since “unofficial pods will hurt your brewer” was the whole pitch behind the 2.0 lockout. If you’re still running one, our Keurig 2.0 pod workarounds post still applies.