LMNT vs Oasis Lawsuit: Lead Claims and What They Mean

What is the LMNT lawsuit against Oasis?

Drink LMNT, Inc. v. Live Oasis, LLC and Cormac Hayden (No. 1:26-cv-00677) was filed in the US District Court for the District of Delaware on June 10, 2026, and is assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall, according to the docket. LMNT makes salt-heavy electrolyte drink mixes. Oasis runs the “Oasis: What’s Healthy” app and the oasishealth.app website, which score food, water and supplements; its homepage promises users the lab results and what was detected for products they scan. Hayden is its founder.

The 51-page complaint brings six claims against both defendants: false advertising under the federal Lanham Act, defamation, trade libel, tortious interference, and unfair-competition claims under Delaware and California law. LMNT asks for an order requiring Oasis to remove the content and run corrective posts aimed at the original audience, plus compensatory and punitive damages, Oasis’s profits and legal fees, and it demands a jury trial. The complaint names no dollar figure in its prayer for relief. Hayden has written on X that LMNT is suing for $255 million; that number is his description, and we could not find it in the complaint text.

One note before going further: we have no relationship with either company. We do not sell LMNT, and we have cited an Oasis microplastics test once before, on our Graza olive oil page, labelled as a single third-party result.

What LMNT says happened

Everything in this section is LMNT’s account, from its complaint. Oasis has not filed an answer to the complaint.

The complaint’s core claim is that the error was arithmetic, not a scientific disagreement. It says Oasis compared a bulk concentration with a per-person daily threshold and in doing so overstated LMNT’s lead content by a factor of 300. It also objects to percentage framings such as “93%” of a daily value, noting that the FDA sets no daily value for lead. The complaint describes the same kind of mistake in Oasis posts about protein powders, including Premier Protein, which it says Oasis also corrected in May 2026.

The complaint goes further than the lead math. It calls Oasis a fear-driven ratings app, says it earns affiliate commissions on product pages while its FAQ says it does no paid promotion, and argues its scores are internally inconsistent. Those are characterizations by a litigant. Oasis’s own FAQ does say it adds affiliate links to help fund the project and does not accept paid sponsorships or ads.

What Oasis and Cormac Hayden say

Oasis’s court arguments are in its October 5, 2026 motion and a declaration from Hayden, which we have not been able to read; the docket describes the motion only as seeking dismissal for improper venue, transfer, and partial dismissal. Hayden’s public position comes from his posts on X.

• In a September 24, 2026 post, Hayden described Oasis as a bootstrapped independent startup, said LMNT is suing over Oasis sharing independent lead results, and wrote that Oasis had published corrections to all of LMNT’s claims but LMNT would not settle.
• On November 9, 2026, he wrote that the suit seeks $255 million plus punitive damages and fees, adding that this is how big food companies can crush a startup.
• On November 11, 2026, he wrote that after the first post about Raw Unflavored, Oasis “discussed corrected figures with LMNT and updated the Oasis app data accordingly.” He said the original post stayed up unintentionally until about May 2026, that LMNT did not contact Oasis about it afterwards, that a February 2026 Oasis post scored LMNT Raw Unflavored at 90/100, and that the May 2026 Citrus Salt post was corrected the following day.
• X later attached a reader-added context note to his November 9 post, saying it misstated details of the dispute, including when the correction came.

Some of this overlaps with LMNT’s account. Both sides describe talks about corrected figures in early 2025, and both describe a public correction in May 2026. They disagree on what was fixed, when, and whether the correction was adequate. LMNT says the original posts stayed up until May 2026 and that a 3/100 score remained on other products. Hayden says app data was updated after the discussions and that leaving the post up was not intentional. A court, not this article, will decide those disputes if the case reaches them.

Is LMNT safe? What the lead numbers actually mean

Lab reports for powders and foods usually give heavy metals as a concentration: parts per billion (ppb), which in a solid means micrograms per kilogram. You never eat a kilogram of electrolyte powder. To get what is in one serving, multiply by the serving weight in grams and divide by 1,000. LMNT walks through exactly this on its science site, using the same 27 ppb result, which it says came from an influencer’s test and aligns with its own batch testing.

Which limit you compare that against matters just as much. The common ones measure different things:

Two limits on that comparison. First, 27 ppb is one result from one product; it does not describe every flavor, lot or the heavier 6-gram flavored sticks. The complaint cites 0.0773 micrograms per serving for Citrus Salt in Oasis’s corrected post. Second, the FDA levels cover everything a person eats in a day, so lead from one drink adds to lead from vegetables, grains and water. Being under a benchmark is not the same as zero, and LMNT itself says its mined-salt products contain trace heavy metals.

LMNT says on its quality page that every lot is tested by third parties for heavy metals, microbes and mineral content and that a lot that fails is not released. It posts certificates of analysis for Citrus Salt and offers lot certificates on request. The page does not name its labs or state their accreditation. We did not find a fully independent published lead test of LMNT beyond the 27 ppb result both sides now cite.

So, is LMNT safe on lead? On the figures in the public record, a serving sits below the strictest US benchmark both sides referred to. That is a statement about those numbers, not a safety certificate for every lot. Anyone with a specific concern, especially during pregnancy, can ask LMNT for the certificate for their lot and check it with the math above, or ask a clinician about total lead exposure.

Where the case stands

As of November 13, 2026, the case is open and no claim has been decided. After two agreed extensions, Oasis and Hayden filed a motion on October 5, 2026 asking the court to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to transfer the case, and to partially dismiss the complaint, with a supporting declaration from Hayden. LMNT filed its opposition and two declarations on November 2. Under the court’s October 9 order, the defendants’ reply is due November 16, 2026. You can follow new filings on the CourtListener docket. We will not guess at the result.

If you searched “LMNT lawsuit” for something else: a separate 2025 class action in federal court in Montana challenges LMNT’s “all natural” and keto-friendly labeling over maltodextrin in its natural flavors. It has nothing to do with lead or Oasis, and we have not checked its current status.

Can you trust health-scoring apps? A checklist

This case is useful beyond LMNT because the alleged error is easy to make and easy to miss. A scary score spreads faster than its footnotes. Before you throw out a product because an app, ours included, flagged it, run through these questions.

No app will pass every line, and a result that fails one is not automatically wrong. The point is to know which kind of number you are reading. Our guide to plastic scan apps and the Think Dirty vs Yuka comparison cover how different scanners build their scores. The same habit applies to protein powders, where lead results are common and often reported in ppb; see what protein powder tests measure.

How the MicroPlastics app is different, and what it cannot tell you

We make a scanning app too, so it is fair to say plainly what it does. The MicroPlastics app identifies the plastics and other materials a product declares (packaging, contact parts, listed ingredients) and gives an exposure assessment for how those materials are used. It does not run its own lab tests, it does not test for lead or other heavy metals, and it does not publish particle counts for named products it has not seen measured.

That is a narrower promise than “see what’s really inside.” We think it is the more useful one for most shopping decisions, because you can check it. Each entry in our product database carries an evidence grade saying whether that exact item was ever measured, and our methodology page keeps a dated corrections log. When we audited that database in August 2026, only 12 of 132 scored products rested on a measurement of that item, and we published that. For electrolyte mixes in particular, our electrolyte powder guide explains why the sachet, the mixing water and the bottle matter more for plastics than the powder itself.

Use the App

Know what a score is built on before you trust it

The MicroPlastics app shows the declared materials, the evidence behind each assessment and what has never been measured. It does not test for lead. Available on iOS and Android.

What to do if a scoring app frightens you about a product

• Find the raw number and its unit. If it is in ppb or ppm, convert it to a per-serving amount with the label’s serving size.
• Compare with a named benchmark. Prop 65’s 0.5 micrograms a day for lead is the strictest common one; the FDA levels are for your whole diet.
• Ask the brand for the certificate of analysis for your lot. Many supplement makers, LMNT included, offer them.
• Look for a correction. Check the app’s and the brand’s accounts before you share a screenshot.
• Keep perspective. If a single product is a large part of your lead exposure, a clinician can help weigh it against water, food and home sources.