Who Controls Tequila? A Legal Battle Between Regulators and Independent Watchdogs Heats Up Over Additives, First Amendment Rights and Transparency

Ismael Gama Rodarte, an agave plant cutter, or “jimador” with 35 years of experience, cuts the tips off agave branches at a Jose Cuervo field near Tequila, Mexico. (Photo: AP Photo/Guillermo Arias)

On Sunday, the Additive Free Alliance hit back at a lawsuit accusing the organization of trademark infringement. It’s the latest in a long-simmering dispute centered squarely on tequila additives, an unexpected flashpoint in the industry that has bubbled into a public legal battle between regulators and independent watchdogs.

At the beginning of March, the Tequila Regulatory Council filed a lawsuit in Florida court alleging that the AFA engaged in “false and misleading advertising claims.”  Launched in 2020 as an offshoot of the website Tequila Matchmaker, the AFA once conducted third-party evaluations that tested tequilas for abocantes — a group of additives spanning glycerin, oak extract, caramel coloring and sugar-based syrup. Earning distinction as an “additive-free” brand became a badge of honor for discerning tequila brands. The CRT, however, publicly disapproved of the program, eventually compelling the takedown of the Internet’s largest additive-free database and filing a suit against its maker, Grover Sanschagrin.

In a response filed earlier this week, the AFA refuted the CRT’s claims point by point, divulging a few alleged details along the way that have, until now, been unknown to the public.

The gist of the AFA’s argument hinges on First Amendment rights. By filing a lawsuit in Florida court, the CRT is alleged to have overextended its authority into a jurisdiction where free speech and consumer advocacy are protected under law. Though “tequila” continues to have a legal designation of origin specific to Mexico, the AFA claims its transparency efforts didn’t cross a line.

“Consejo Regulador del Tequila A.C. (‘CRT’) is attempting to assert regulatory powers it does not possess under U.S. law, conflating its authority as a private Mexican conformity assessment body with exclusive legal power over U.S. commercial speech,” the filing wrote. “Defendants’ activities fall squarely within the protections of the First Amendment and reflect a legitimate effort to inform consumers.”

Lawyers representing the AFA add that its Additive-Free list was removed from the Internet in October 2024, a full six months before the CRT filed its lawsuit. AFA founder Grover Sanschagrin said the decision was made in an attempt to protect distillers from undue retaliation. The CRT had reportedly sent threatening letters to brands that included additive-free messaging in their labels and marketing material.

For its part, the CRT claims it is the “sole certifier” of the tequila industry. But that authority has also been thrown into the debate. The CRT — a third-party non-profit recognized but not directly operated by the government — had its jurisdiction challenged in 2022 when the Secretary of Economy approved Certificación Mexicana for agave spirits inspections. However, it’s unclear whether or not that organization has actually taken up the task. Certificación Mexicana mentions sotol, bacanora and mezcal on its Instagram page, noticeably omitting tequila for all its official materials.

This is where the AFA’s filing quietly takes a turn toward bombshell allegations.

In May, a widely circulated lawsuit claimed popular tequila brands Casamigos and Don Julio were in fact not “100% agave,” but rather spirits adulterated with “significant concentrations” of cane and other types of alcohol. The two Diageo-owned tequilas were the only brands mentioned at the time. In its affirmative defense filed on Sunday, however, the AFA alleged that laboratory testing revealed non-agave alcohol in 15 tequilas from nine different distilleries. None were discussed by name in the filing.

If true, the claims would amount to deceptive advertising. The AFA argues that the CRT’s lawsuit is thus barred under the doctrine of unclean hands, applied to complaining parties that themselves are accused of inequitable conduct.

“Through its widespread certification of reportedly non-compliant and adulterated tequila, CRT has misused its certification mark, misleading consumers and undermining the integrity of the tequila certification process,” the filing adds. “CRT’s active role in certifying reportedly adulterated tequila precludes it from seeking equitable relief in this matter.”

The CRT has repeatedly denied the allegations regarding adulterated tequila. In an email shared in January, CRT representatives questioned the validity of claims made by Remberto Galván, who, at the time, was the first to go public with accusations of cane distillate in products labeled as tequila.

“Accusations of corruption against an industry that has grown through the collaborative efforts of numerous stakeholders are deeply concerning… The CRT is subject to regular audits by relevant authorities, which consistently verify the traceability, impartiality, and technical expertise of our operations. These audits confirm our commitment to upholding the integrity of the Tequila Denomination of Origin in Mexico and worldwide.”

Representatives for Casamigos and Don Julio have denied the allegations as well, adding that they “look forward to vigorously defending the quality and integrity of our Tequilas in court.”