XML 38 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.3

Commitments and Contingencies (Notes) | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2025
Legal Proceedings [Abstract] |
Commitments and contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Joint Juice Litigation In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition’s advertising claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the “California Federal Class Lawsuit”). In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and plaintiff’s petition for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit was denied. In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed the California Federal Class Lawsuit against Premier Nutrition in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers as the California Federal Class Lawsuit. In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Premier Nutrition’s motion for judgment based on res judicata, and in May 2023, the Court reaffirmed its ruling. In July 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which writ was denied in March 2024. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the action on behalf of New York consumers (the “New York Case”). On May 14, 2025, the court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply on certain issues. In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff’s counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the “Related Federal Actions”). These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the New York Case was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the Court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment interest, and in August 2023, the Court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $7.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award and in December 2023 Premier Nutrition filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the attorneys’ fees award. In August 2024, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the damages award affirming the trial court’s decision on liability, vacating and remanding to the trial court for further consideration of its decision on calculated damages and reversing the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest to plaintiff. Premier Nutrition’s subsequent petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was denied in October 2024. On January 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s attorneys’ fees award. On February 3, 2025, the trial court entered an order awarding $0.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the trial court entered an order again limiting statutory damages to $8.3 under the due process clause. Each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award. On March 13, 2025, Premier Nutrition filed a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s merits decision. In February 2025, the court set a trial date for February 2026 in the Related Federal Action on behalf of the class of consumers in Illinois (the “Illinois Case”). Plaintiff filed a motion to apply issue preclusion from certain rulings in the New York Case to the Illinois Ca se. On May 2, 2025, the trial court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply in the Illinois Case on the issues of deceptiveness, materiality, the measure of damages, and the First Amendment, but not on the issues of causation, intent, or punitive damages. The seven other Related Federal Actions remain pending, and the court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except New Mexico). In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period (the “California State Case”). In July 2020, the court issued an order certifying a statewide class. Premier Nutrition moved for summary judgment in July 2023, which motion was tentatively granted in part and denied in part on August 23, 2023. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case decision. On May 14, 2025, the court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply on certain issues. On June 25, 2025, the parties reached a class-wide settlement in principle related to the Joint Juice Litigation, which includes the California Federal Class Lawsuit, all of the Related Federal Actions (except New Mexico) and the California State Case through a court-ordered settlement conference, which settlement in principle is subject to judicial approval. On June 26, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion with the United States Supreme Court to hold the certiorari petition in the New York Case in abeyance pending approval of the class settlement. On July 2, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion with the Ninth Circuit to hold the appeal in the New York Case in abeyance pending approval of the class settlement. On October 17, 2025, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement in the New York Case (the “New York Settlement”). On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the New York Settlement, which motion remains pending. Pursuant to the terms of the New York Settlement, if the settlement receives final approval and becomes effective, the Company will pay a total of $19.2 into a settlement fund to resolve the New York Case. The New York Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any of its current or former directors or officers. On October 22, 2025, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement in the California State Case (the “Multistate Settlement”). The Multistate Settlement also encompasses the California Federal Class Lawsuit (which has been consolidated with the California State Case) and the Related Federal Actions (which will be added to the California State Case via a stipulated amended complaint pursuant to the terms of the Multistate Settlement) excluding New York and New Mexico. On October 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Multistate Settlement, which motion remains pending. Pursuant to the terms of the Multistate Settlement, if the settlement receives final approval and becomes effective, the Company will pay a total of $70.8 into a settlement fund to resolve the California State Case, California Federal Class Lawsuit, and Related Federal Actions excluding New York and New Mexico. The Multistate Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any of its current or former directors or officers. On November 12, 2025, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and release in the New Mexico Federal Related Action, which is not subject to court approval. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will make an immaterial payment to resolve the New Mexico action. During the years ended September 30, 2025, 2024 and 2023, the Company expensed $69.0, zero and $5.0, respectively, related to the legal matter and plaintiff legal fees in connection with the Joint Juice litigation, which was included in “Selling, general and administrative expenses” on the Consolidated Statements of Operations. At September 30, 2025 and 2024, the Company had an estimated liability of $90.0 and $21.0, respectively, related to these matters that was included in “Other current liabilities” on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and actions arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information presently known, the ultimate liability, if any, arising from such pending legal proceedings, as well as from asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, taking into account established accruals for estimated liabilities (if any), are not expected to be material individually or in the aggregate to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In addition, although it is difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of actions regarding expenditures for compliance with regulatory matters, in the opinion of management, based upon the information currently available, the ultimate liability arising from such compliance matters is not expected to be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

X
- Definition Legal Proceedings [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | brbr_LegalProceedingsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | brbr_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration