In late 2023 and throughout 2024, Starbucks… no, scratch that—smart brands like PepsiCo—faced a whirlwind of digital chatter around something bizarre: a supposed lawsuit between the soda giant and a TikTok influencer named Cierra Mistt. This quirky story captivated online audiences: could a creator truly wrest “Sierra Mist” away from PepsiCo? And was the emergence of a new soda—Starry—somehow tied to this legal drama?
As curious beverage fans and legal observers looked on, the internet thrummed with speculation. But as with many viral stories, the truth proves less exciting—and far more revealing. Let’s pop open the can and explore the real story behind the so-called “Sierra Mist lawsuit.”
1. The Viral Spark: Who Is Cierra Mistt?
- Cierra Mistt is an internet personality, primarily known for flight attendant–style content on TikTok and YouTube.
- In mid-2023, she posted a YouTube video claiming that PepsiCo had accused her of infringing on the “Sierra Mist” trademark and that PepsiCo attempted to sue her—but, she asserts, “lost.” In a TikTok, she added that “for legal reasons, the conflict was amicably resolved” Green MattersLawyersInventory.
This bold claim exploded online, sparking curiosity and skepticism—and largely dominating conversations about trademarks, branding, and digital identity.
2. What Did Cierra Actually Say?
- According to a Green Matters article, she implied that Pepsi pursued legal action against her and she prevailed Green Matters.
- A legal-oriented blog echoed this, stating that she “claimed Pepsi tried to sue her but lost,” framing it as a clash between personal branding and corporate power LawyersInventory.
But she offered no documentation—no court filings, no attorneys’ statements—just viral videos.
3. Fact-Checking: What the Trademark Records Say
- According to Stemer Law (April 2025), PepsiCo still holds active trademark registrations for “Sierra Mist.” There are no records of any “Cierra Mist” trademark nor filings from that name Stemer Law.
- Wikipedia’s entry on Sierra Mist confirms the soda was introduced in 1999 and formally discontinued in January 2023, replaced by Starry—consistent with a strategic rebrand, not a legal retreat Wikipedia+1.
Thus, the claim that PepsiCo lost control of the trademark—or that “Cierra Mistt” could legally claim it—doesn’t align with publicly available evidence.
4. Internet Reaction: A Measured Dose of Skepticism
Reddit’s r/IsItBullshit boiled it down succinctly:
“I’ve seen a few news articles that say a TikToker named Cierra Mistt … that’s why they renamed Starry.”
“Trademarks don’t expire … unless abandoned … and PepsiCo still has the registered trademarks live with the USPTO.”
“I think she’s invented this whole thing out of whole cloth as a publicity stunt.” Reddit
These responses highlight public wariness around oversimplified legal claims—especially when they lack documentation.
5. Why Did Sierra Mist Really Disappear? The Rebrand to Starry
Wikipedia notes that Sierra Mist, despite multiple rebranding attempts, struggled to beat Sprite in the U.S. market. It was rebranded as Mist Twst (2016–18), reverted back to Sierra Mist, and finally replaced by Starry in January 2023 Wikipedia+1.
Sparrow Blog, in a consumer-protection context, emphasizes that PepsiCo’s shift to Starry was a strategic marketing and refresh effort, aimed at younger audiences, rather than a legal reaction to the influencer’s claims Sparrow.
6. Legal and Branding Lessons from the Rumor Mill
a) Trademark vs Branding Strategy
- Trademarks must be renewed—but high-profile brands like PepsiCo maintain ownership through regular use and filings RedditStemer Law.
- Rebranding is often about positioning—not losing a name.
b) The Power of Viral Claims
- Minutes on TikTok can overshadow weeks of legal research.
- In a digital age, creators can amplify claims as brand strategy—regardless of veracity.
c) Why Silence from PepsiCo Matters
- Pepsi remained publicly silent—no filings, no denials, no confirmations.
- Silence allows the narrative to swirl unchecked—but also signals confidence that no legal action occurred Green MattersLawyersInventory.
d) Consumer Confusion & Rights
- Sparrow Blog notes potential consumer complaints: did PepsiCo mislead consumers into thinking Starry was just a renamed Sierra Mist? That raises talk of misleading marketing Sparrow.
- Despite this consumer backlash, formal legal claims remain unverified.
7. Bringing It All Together: So, Is the “Sierra Mist Lawsuit” Real?
Short answer: There’s no credible evidence that PepsiCo sued—and lost to—Cierra Mistt. Trademark records show PepsiCo still owns “Sierra Mist.” The brand change to Starry reflects marketing strategy, not legal defeat.
Here’s a table summary:
| Claim | Evidence | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| PepsiCo sued Cierra Mistt over name | Only her viral claims, no filings | Unverified |
| Cierra Mistt won legal battle | No public documentation | Implausible |
| Trademark “Sierra Mist” lapsed and was claimed by influencer | USPTO records show active PepsiCo registrations | False |
| Sierra Mist was rebranded due to lawsuit | Rebranding aligns with marketing strategy | Branding, not legal |
| Consumers misled by launch of Starry | Consumer confusion noted; potential for dispute | Possible, but no lawsuit confirmed |
8. Broader Takeaways for Brands and Creators
- Creators: Your online name is your IP—but popularity doesn’t equate to legal ownership. Register if you intend to protect it.
- Brands: Suppressing rumors with public statements can prevent speculative misinterpretation—but tight-lipped responses can also deepen intrigue.
- Consumers: Viral stories are fun—but always cross-check with credible sources, especially when legal rights or product identity are involved.
Conclusion
The “Sierra Mist lawsuit” was likely more fizz than flavor—an attention-grabbing narrative with slim legal substance. The real takeaway? In the swirl of content and clout, a pinch of critical thinking goes a long way.
