AFA rejects CRT’s exclusivity claim over Tequila
The Additive Free Alliance (AFA) has filed its defence to the Consejo Regulador del Tequila’s (CRT) lawsuit, denying that the body has “exclusive and legitimate control” over the category’s certification.
In March 2025, the CRT filed a lawsuit against the AFA and S2F Online, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida’s Jacksonville Division.
The CRT claimed the AFA was misleading consumers by running an ‘unauthorised’ certification programme, with the lawsuit filed to prevent the organisation from infringing on the CRT’s Tequila trademark. It alleged that the AFA’s actions cause ‘confusion in the marketplace’ and are harmful to the Tequila sector.
Describing itself as the sole certifier of Tequila and the agency responsible for approving the category’s labels, the CRT claims that the AFA is representing itself as a certifier of Tequila and ‘misleading the public’ by confirming that brands are additive-free.
Website and app Tequila Matchmaker launched the AFA in 2020. Grover Sanschagrin, the creator of Tequila Matchmaker, relaunched the non-profit organisation as an independent entity, based in Florida, in August 2024.
The AFA conducts an independent evaluation of Tequila brands through laboratory and sensory assessments to see if they contain additives.
The defence
Tequila producers are permitted to use up to 1% of additives (also known as abocantes) in production. This does not have to be disclosed on the label. Four types of abocantes are permitted: glycerin, caramel colouring, oak extract, and jarabe or sugar-based syrup.
However, in a newly filed document detailing its defence, the AFA argued the lawsuit “seeks to suppress a consumer advocacy programme” that the CRT was aware had been “inactive for months when it filed its complaint”.
The AFA previously published a list of the brands that had met its requirements to be labelled ‘additive free’. This was removed from the non-profit’s website in October 2024.
The organisation denied the claim that it had violated the CRT’s trademark rights by forming, promoting and managing an additive-free certification programme for Tequila. It said it had “never claimed to be a certification body and made clear that their platform offered independent, voluntary and optional evaluations – not certifications under Mexican regulatory standards – of additive-free related claims”.
The AFA alleges that the CRT is “attempting to assert regulatory powers it does not possess under US law, conflating its authority as a private Mexican conformity assessment body with exclusive legal power over US commercial speech”.
In its defence, the AFA further claimed that its actions fall directly under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, reflecting a “legitimate effort to inform consumers, not infringe CRT’s certification mark for Tequila”.
‘Unconstitutional overreach’
It also called the CRT’s claims an “unconstitutional overreach”, adding that the trade body had been “severely undermined by recent events in Mexico”.
The AFA pointed to the Mexican government’s establishment of an unrelated entity, Certificación Mexicana, in May 2022. It claims this entity was created to “inspect and evaluate Tequila for compliance with the same regulatory standards that CRT uses for testing and certification”.
According to the AFA, the CRT had challenged this new accreditation, but the lawsuit was quickly dismissed in June 2023 because the CRT “lacked standing”.
As such, the AFA believes the CRT can no longer claim “exclusive and legitimate control” over the Tequila mark due to Certificación Mexicana’s ability to evaluate the category.
It claims that the Mexican government should own the Tequila certification mark and have the right to determine whether a product is Tequila, not the CRT. It also believes that only the government can authorise the use of Tequila as a denomination of origin.
The AFA said the approval of Certificación Mexicana “confirms that multiple accredited bodies can lawfully evaluate Tequila under the same legal framework, thereby calling into question the validity of CRT’s claim of having exclusive rights over the Tequila mark and the federal trademark registration upon which this lawsuit is based”.
It concluded: “As a result, [the] CRT cannot claim exclusive and legitimate control over the certification of Tequila, rendering its federal trademark registration invalid and subject to cancellation.”
Funded by ‘large producers’
The AFA also denied the CRT’s claim that it “promotes balance within the Tequila agroindustry”, alleging that the body is “dominated by large producers who fund it and does not operate equitably or impartially across the agave-Tequila supply chain”.
It also alleged that the CRT’s practices “fail to ensure authenticity as evidenced by the wide distribution of reportedly adulterated products certified under its oversight”.
In its lawsuit, the CRT said it was the only organisation that “can inspect, analyse, and certify compliance” with the Tequila Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM), otherwise known as the Official Mexican Standard. However, the AFA said the CRT’s authority is “limited to conformity assessment under Mexican law and does not extend to exclusivity in certification across all Tequila-related designations”.
The AFA also defended statements it had made on social media and to the press regarding CRT’s “ineffective” oversight of Tequila labelling, adding that this is backed by the CRT’s “own admission that it relies on Tequila manufacturers to honestly self-report their compliance with CRT regulations, without the CRT performing any regular testing to verify such self-reporting”.
Regarding the CRT’s claim that the term ‘additive free’ is “false and misleading”, the AFA alleges that the regulatory body had permitted the use of the phrase on approved labels for years and cannot claim that identifying these particular brands as ‘additive free’ is “illegal or improper”.
‘Non-agave alcohol’ labelled as ‘100% agave’
The AFA further went on to allege that the CRT’s claims are “barred by the doctrine of unclean hands”, claiming it has certified unadulterated Tequila products that do not meet regulatory standards set out by the Mexican government.
The AFA said it has conducted third-party laboratory testing of 15 Tequilas from nine different distilleries. It discovered ‘non-agave alcohol’, despite the CRT certifying and labelling them as ‘100% agave’. It noted that some approved products reportedly “substituted agave with inexpensive alcohol made from cane sugar”, causing harm to consumers, agave farmers and the local economy.
Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit was filed against Don Julio and Casamigos owner Diageo. This alleged the company had falsely marketed its Tequila brands as ‘100% agave’ in the US.
The AFA also explained that it had changed the name of its programme from ‘verification’ to ‘confirmation’ in 2021 after the CRT’s objection, adding that the CRT subsequently approved its use on labels. It noted that on 14 April 2021, it met with the CRT, who objected to the AFA’s programme and requested it make “certain corrective steps”. The AFA notified the CRT of changes it had made to its platform and operations in a letter on 28 April 2021.
Following these amendments, the CRT did not object to any of the AFA’s activities for almost four years until the lawsuit was filed, the AFA claimed.
The AFA said: “The filing of the complaint after such a prolonged period of inaction constitutes an unreasonable delay and, as a result, [the] CRT’s claims are barred by laches.”
The Spirits Business has approached the CRT for comment.
The arguments over the disclosure of additives in the Tequila industry came to a head last year, when the CRT urged the industry to stop using the “misleading” phrase ‘additive free’.
In August 2024, the CRT and Mexico’s federal consumer protection agency, PROFECO, issued a statement that said the “certification of the term ‘additive free’ would cause confusion among consumers and regulated parties and in the conformity assessment activities” and “the use of the phrase ‘additive free’ as part of the commercial information displayed on the labelling of ‘Tequila’, must be previously verified and not mislead regarding the characteristics and nature of such alcoholic beverage”.
Several producers have spoken in favour of using the ‘additive-free’ term across labels and marketing, including Patrón maker Bacardi and Mijenta.
Last month, Bacardi said it was in “constructive conversations” with the CRT to address the topic of additives transparently following a temporary ban on Patrón exports.
However, Proximo Spirits (the company behind Jose Cuervo) believes there is a “misconception” about the use of additives in the Tequila industry.
Related news
Tequila Enemigo and Handshake Speakeasy team up with Fulham
