PublicationsThe Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry

March 4, 20210

This paper analyses how Nestle has maintained an illegal water bottling industry in the United States of America, with the help of undue political and fiscal influence. Discussing a string of litigations against Nestle in California and Michigan, this essay exposes how Nestle has extracted millions of gallons of water at a negligible cost and sold it at a profit of billions. Not only have they conducted their water-pumping activities at the cost of unreasonable environmental harm, but have also maintained it by influencing politicians and judges, and positioning the right people at important positions.


From forced labor accusations in Thailand to environmental law violations in the United States of America, litigations and a negative socio-economic reputation follow Nestle like the paparazzi follows a Hollywood star. Amongst all the violations that Nestle has committed as a brutal corporate powerhouse, this paper will focus on Nestle’s water pumping controversy in the packaged water industry of USA, primarily concentrating on Michigan and California.

Nestle is the largest food company in the world with Nestlé Waters being one of the biggest corporate players in the bottled water industry. Nestle Waters operates in North America through its business unit, Nestlé Waters North America, which controls more than 30% of the market share in bottled water sales and is also deemed the largest producer of bottled water in the USA.[1] They primarily focus on ‘spring water’ but even that has come under considerable questioning, considering the litigation with respect to ‘Poland Spring’.[2] They function under various brand names for each region in the United States such as “Poland Spring” sold mostly in the Northeast, “Arrowhead” sold mostly in the West, “Ice-mountain” sold mostly in the Midwest, along with “Nestle Pure Life” as the national brand.[3] However, the major issue which Nestle is creating through their bottled water business is illegally extracting millions of gallons of water from the ground, consequently affecting the flora and fauna around. The problems are not limited to environmental damage as Nestle is also guilty of using public water, almost for free, selling the same at a profit of billions. Poland Spring, Ice Mountain and Arrowhead combined, brought in sales of $4.5 billion in the year 2017,[4] while Nestle pays a mere amount of approximately $600 per year for the permit to extract millions of gallons of water.[5] Hence, Nestle and the US Forest Department faced severe public backlash for approving five year- new permit and have been involved in a string of litigations for their policies concerning the bottled water business.[6]

The first part of this paper will discuss the political influence and corruption that played a role in Nestle’s business practices to maintain their profits from the industry. The second part of this paper will analyse the case of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc.,[7] discussing the legal issues, public backlash and political dilemma around this controversy. The third part of the paper discusses the legal battle between Nestle and the Story of Stuff Project, revolving around the drought in California. The fourth part of the paper expresses the urgency of blocking the corporate powerhouses from exploiting the environment and violation of public rights. Last but not the least, using the Nestle case as a case study, it also depicts the need to combat globalisation as a major challenge to the environment by stringent and transparent laws with effective administration.

Nestle’s unlawful water pumping activities in the state of Michigan

The most prominent water law issues raised against Nestle, with respect to their water pumping activities, is illustrated in the case of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc (NWNA).[8] In 1970, NWNA was issued water rights in 1970 for a 139-acre tract, on and off the North Shore of Osprey Lake, which was connected to several other bodies of water such as Thompson Lake, dead stream and several wetlands. [9] The dispute started off from Minnesota County (Michigan), where Nestle submitted a request, granted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The permit allowed an increase in the amount of groundwater allowed to be pumped, to a total of 400 gallons per minute, which would add up to 576,000 gallons per day from Sanctuary Springs. Nestle would then connect the groundwater through a pipeline to its production facility for its “Ice Mountain” brand. Hence, the Michigan Citizens for WaterConservation (MCWC) sued Nestle, seeking an injunction on the extraction of groundwater, to protect their own rights as well as that of the environment.[10]

An interesting fact is that Pfizer and Post Foods would extract more water than Nestle in the same State but Nestle was the company that got sued. This was firstly due to the fact that the entirety of the water that Nestle pumped would be consumed while the other companies would return the water to the watershed.[11] Secondly, Nestle’s marketing strategy conflicted with their objectives as they concentrated on selling spring water but according to the Food and Administration Rules, spring water can only come from “the spring or through a borehole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring”.[12] Hence, by definition, water taken from a spring or any tributary leading up to the spring would naturally diminish the level of the stream and would force people to fight for their common right. The flow in most springs are very light and even a decrease of 7.5 gallons per second affects the fishes negatively.[13]Therefore, these strategies received major public backlash encompassing almost 80,000 negative comments on their initial application to increase the number of gallons Nestle was permitted to pump.[14] The MCWC brought claims on the grounds that according to the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), before a permit can be granted, a factual determination is a necessity, which the State of California failed to abide by.[15] The second ground for the claims was that the extraction of water violates the public trust and riparian rights on the arising out of the water bodies.[16]

There was constant controversy incriminating the Department of Environment Quality (DEQ), following Nestle’s permit to extract water. This is due to the law laid down in the Safe Drinking Act and the Water Withdrawal Act. It states that before the permit is granted, there must be existing hydrological data and the data must include determined flows and levels of the water body, before and after the pumping takes place, to determine whether the water use actually causes unreasonable harm.[17] However, the DEQ issued the permit even though this data was not produced, relying purely on Nestle’s serving computer model which further did not include proper methods of research, as Nestle would conduct tests right after rainfall which would automatically result in a higher flow of water.[18] A proper test for the same would be to analyse the real-time stream and flow of the entire river. According to various water-use experts, a prominent reason for why the same was not done was because the real-time monitoring for every section of Michigan’s 30,000 miles of the river would cost an approximate valuation of $18 million.[19] Hence, when the Court actually examined actual existing data to determine the demerits and merits of the pumping, the pumping of 400 gallons per minutes was considered unlawful as it would cause unreasonable and excessive harm.

Addressing the issue of public trust, the Court interpreted the Michigan Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which stated that the attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction, where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur, with the objective of declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources, from pollution, impairment, or destruction.[20] For 30 years, Michigan Courts have granted standing to “any person” making a claim under the public trust doctrine and MEPA rules. [21] However, the Court ruled that MCWC did not have any standing according to the standards established in the Lujan case.[22] The case annunciates that to have sufficient standing, the plaintiff must have (1) an injury that was (2) caused by the party’s action and that a favourable court holding will (3) redress the injury.[23]  The Court ruled that the plaintiffs could not establish that they have a substantial interest in the concerned area such that they are detrimentally affected by the extraction of groundwater by Nestle and the same is distinct from the general interest of the public.[24] in furtherance of that, the Court elucidated that Michigan is a tripartite system of government.[25]  In accordance with the federal constitution, “standing ensures that a genuine case or controversy is before the court”,[26] and standing is “an indispensable doctrine rooted in our constitution and the tripartite system of government it prescribes”.[27] Hence, a clause like that in the MEPA cannot overrule the Court’s standard of standing or the constitutional requirement of the same and hence, the public trust doctrine is not violated.

With respect to the issue of riparian rights to determine whether Nestle’s use was unreasonable, it is pertinent to first establish that the Court balances a ‘fair participation’ or a balance between the complaining party and preserving as many beneficial uses as feasible, for other parties.   The complaining party’s claim must be based on the fact that the respondent party’s use is excessive or harmful such that it is reasonable, based on circumstantial evidence. The court considered the following factors in the current case: (1) the purpose of the use, (2) the suitability of the use to the location, (3) the extent and amount of the harm, (4) the benefits of the use, (5) the necessity of the amount and manner of the water use, and (6) any other factor that may bear on the reasonableness of the use.”[28] After analysing all the factors, the Court determined that the pumping of 400 gallons per minute by Nestle would cause unreasonable harm to the Dead Stream. However, the Court stated that Nestle still has the right to ‘fair participation’ and remanded the case back to the Trial Court to determine a reasonable rate of pumping.

Even though Nestle was not allowed to pursue their new interest of increasing the amount of water pumping, the public trust verdict and the conduct of the State Environmental Authorities behind this judgment must be analysed in accordance to the politics surrounding the case. Justice Weaver made valid arguments in her minority opinion stating that not one case before the Lee and Nestle decisions supported the standard laid down for standing in the current case.  For thirty years, the Michigan Supreme Court had respected and used the guidelines in MEPA but suddenly rejected the same. By applying the standing principle to MEPA, the Court has taken away the power to ensure the protection of Michigan’s natural resources, a power given to the people by the legislature.[29] Michigan’s Supreme Court has often been accused of political motives behind decisions rather than proper reasoning. [30] The Michigan Supreme Court has often been accused of favouring big corporation powerhouses and insurance industries. [31]In fact, one of the law schools has a case book that featured the Michigan Supreme Court below the heading of “Judicial Politics.”[32] Furthermore, unlike federal leaders like Donald Trump who are openly anti-environmental, the Michigan officials seem to have similar beliefs but behind closed doors.  They cleverly manipulated the law in a manner which allowed them to give Nestle a permit. Hence, the politics behind the events leading up to the judgment and within the judgment needs to be brought out in the open and effectively addressed by the media.


Similar litigation has been filed in California against Nestle by three parties: the Centre for Biological Diversity, the state-based Courage Campaign Institute, and The Story of Stuff.[33][34] The US Forest Service issued a permit to Nestle in 1978, which expired in 1988. Even though Nestle filed for the issuance of a new permit, they did not receive a response from the US Forest Service until as late as 2016, when finally, a new 5-year party permit was given. The “zombie permit” issued in 1978 for pumping water from the Strawberry Creek region in San Bernardino National Forest, was issued at the mere rate of $624 per year while Nestle was selling the same at the profit of billions and sucking the State of California dry.[35] The drought has a substantial degrading effect on the Strawberry Creek as California was recent, facing the longest drought they have faced in 5 years with the biggest wildfire ever recorded in California history. As California’s southern urban population grows and considering the drought, the wetlands are extremely important for flora and fauna in the entire area and yet, Nestle continues to pump millions of gallons of water every year.

For 20 months, the State officials carried an investigation and concluded that Nestle was withdrawing water from San Bernardino illegally.[36] However, Nestle disputed the findings arguing that it was allowed to pump 88 million gallons every year, while Nestle only actually pumped one-third of the total allowance.[37] Shockingly, the Forest Department withdrew their findings and reviewed the investigative report purely based on the comments made by Nestle, which was also a sign of weak investigation by the Forest Department.[38] The petitioners brought the claim against Nestle because Nestle’s water pumping activities deteriorate the already dry condition in California. Their claims were brought on two grounds: (1) the permit was invalid and (2) Nestle did not have any right in the water, the activities of which are causing unreasonable environmental damage to the area.[39]

The Court ruled that the permit is not illegal and Nestle shall be allowed to continue using their already set up infrastructure, but with certain restrictions. The use of Nestle shall be restricted if the State’s drought condition worsens, with continuous monitoring of the creek and limited withdrawal.[40] However, even though it seems like a victory for the environmentalists, it is barely one, considering the fact that Nestle is still allowed to sell millions of bottles of packaged water at the rate of a meagre amount. In fact, Nestle itself funded the monitoring projects since the government refused to do so due to budget cuts. Therefore currently, Nestle monitors whether its own activities should stop in lieu of the environmental damage caused. One of the reasons why Courts allowed Nestle to keep continuing its activities or rather a restricted version of it, was due to the fact that the project gives employment to 1200 people in California and cause a major loss of tax revenue for California.[41] The case received severe public backlash from negative comments sent by 80,000 people.[42]

The case also received a lot of media attention and involvement. In fact, Nestle’s initial assessment that withdrawing groundwater would not affect the wetlands was countered by Nestle’s old report in 2000 itself, which states quite the contrary.[43] The report was retrieved by Garrett Ellisson, an investigative journalist for MLive, on a public records request. [44] This was an important breakthrough in the case and shows the role the media had within the case. In fact, a secondary reason why the case received considerable media attention was the politics behind the case, considering the way the events were handled by the US Forest Department and the passing of the Gaining Responsibility of Water Act, which hindered the powers of the State authorities from restricting the use of water and the limits that can be pumped.[45]It would basically take away California’s power to protect its own waters. The Act cosponsored by the Republican incumbent, Paul Cook, was severely criticised by Democratic candidate, Marge Doyle.[46] While Cook’s office was busy ignoring calls and questions from the media on the then-upcoming Act, Doyle was speaking out against Nestle concerning the fee, the company pays, to make billions of dollars of profit.[47]

In furtherance of the already existing political debate, Nestle Waters North America contributed an approximate sum of $22,000 to federal congressional candidates including Cook.[48] Hence, there are severe doubts about the due diligence exercised by the US Forest Service in handling the Nestle deal. [49] The conduct of the US Forest Department brings out the hypocrisy of the State Authorities, as California is about to be the first state to put a limitation on the amount of water that can be extracted on a daily basis with the objective of conserving water, while Nestle is allowed to conduct their operations peacefully, by illegally robbing the public of millions of gallons of water each year.

Other States

Apart from Nestle’s environmental wrongdoings, Nestle’ has also been known to be a ‘predatory’ company across the globe, such that they target struggling areas by incentivising such communities for overstated job promises and social donations, but in actuality, execute cheap tactics of maintaining efficient relations with State officials who hold a certain amount of interest and power over the water bottling industry. In Maine, Nestle specifically spent 1 million dollars on Facebook ads targeting the region and at the same time, spent 634,000$ on Maine politicians from 2001 to 2012.[50]

The Maine Governor Paul LePage, nominated Nestlé Natural Resource Manager, Mark Dubois, on the State Environmental Protection Board, which is also the Board responsible to maintain Maine’s water resources. [51]  Moreover, prior to Dubois’ appointment, Maine’s department for environmental protection was headed by Nestle’s lobbyist Patricia Aho.[52]It’s almost as if Nestle and the Government are working in collaboration with each other. In 2017, Flint residents had to pay higher rates for unclean water compared to what Nestle had to pay for clean water to only, eventually sell it to the public again.[53] Furthermore, in Pennsylvania and Oregon, Nestle donated 105,000$ to a local political action committee right before the election, so that Nestle could go ahead with its water deals in the area.[54]


At a micro level, this essay brings out the negative influence of corporate funding in political processes and the water bottling industry and how the same should be regulated? Even if the water is privatized, how can the same be regulated? Since 2013, Nestle has spent over 11 million dollars.[55] Most of this expenditure, especially after the Citizens United[56]ruling of expanding the scope of corporate contributions in political elections, is done through Political Action Committees (PACs) or Super PACs. Nestle Waters has its independent Political Action Committee through which donations become untraceable, while governmental favours to the company, project the future at the cost of the public. These donations must be restrained back to an amount cap, if not curbed.

Allowing PACs such as that of Nestle Waters’ enables corruption within the political process. Even though there are laws currently enforcing disclosure and transparency within lobbying, the introduction of PACs in 2002 has allowed politicians to circumvent the total cap for corporate contributions in political elections.  Citizens United was a flawed judgment that removed the total cap for corporate spending instead of reducing it, considering the effects of the increased corporate influence on political processes would be devastating to democracy as a whole. The legislature must come out with legislation that overrules the ruling in Citizens United.  Corporate funding must be regulated within elections to make sure that integral industries such as the water bottling industry are not misused at the cost of millions, leading to a tragedy of commons.

Along with PACs, to combat corporate influence on direct donations, a conflict of interest document should be introduced such that in case the candidate supported by a particular corporation wins, he should not be allowed to influence decisions in the industry the corporation is part of. Often, the same individuals involved on one of the sides of the conflict become a member of the committee determining the outcome of the committee as shown in the case of Maine above. Hence, the conflict of interest oath would prevent biased and corrupt decisions executed at the backing of monetary advances. The other aspect that must be seriously considered is that environmental protection law must be strengthened, and made more effective and transparent, with a body constantly monitoring its implementation. Stringent laws enforcing re-usage of wasted water and a limit on the amount of water that can be extracted daily must come be introduced to combat our growing environmental needs. There is new hope in the American Government with Biden’s presidency and pro-environmental stance that can create increased awareness for environmental norms.

On a much broader scale, this paper shows how along with climate change, globalization is maybe the second biggest challenge to protect our natural resources. There is a need for State governments to take a more scientific, research-based and futuristic approach for the conservation of our resources to deal with the pressures of globalisation.

At a macro level, this essay addresses a larger issue as to whether the water in the United States of America should be privatized at all? The privatization of water leads to corporate houses gaining control of a necessity that is an essential human right. Profit-making motives do not allow corporations to use water in a sustainable way. When the CEO of Nestle, Peter Brabeck, himself, states in public, that he does not believe that water is a human right.[57] It would be a delusion to imagine that such a company would care about protecting the environment unless stringer norms and regulations are enforced upon them.  Complete privatization of water leads to a lack of public input since the public can only influence the vote on the ballot box during elections, but not a vote in Nestle’s boardroom. Furthermore, the lack of access to information due to privatization allows corporations to control a basic human right without transparency and public accountability, while they are already in collaboration with the local governments.

As mentioned above, Nestle cherry-picks the locations they want to work and coupled with the profit-only motive, contradicts basic public interest. Furthermore, apart from the lack of sustainable use of water, water is sold at a much higher rate compared to that of the Government. Private water corporations provide utilities at a rate that is 59% higher than that provided by local governments.  Nestle does the same on false advertisement strategies that the bottled water is cleaner and better even though tap water stands in the USA are substantially high. Furthermore, even if the industry is privatized, the Government must make sure that there is adequate competition and a monopoly like that of Nestle’s in the USA’s water bottling industry on an essential human right such as water, should not be allowed to exist. The privatization of water is ethically, socially and environmentally wrong considering the fact that humans need water to survive, and the control over that is in the hands of a private corporation. Obviously, private corporations are going to conduct their activities based on principles of scarcity and profit maximisation rather than long term sustainability.[58] If water is continued to be privatized, we will be unable to face the growing water crisis the world is facing.[59]


[1] See Nestlé Waters North America Performance, available at

 http://www.Nestlé In 2006, Nestlé Waters North America had bottled water sales of $3.846 billion. Id.

[2] “Nestle to face lawsuit saying Poland Spring water not from a Spring: US Judge”, Reuters, 29th March 2019, available at

[3]See Nestlé Waters North America Share of Category, available at


[4] “Michigan conservationists say Nestle’s pumping of well water unsustainable”, CBS News, May 14th 2018, available at

[5] “Nestle Makes Billions Bottling Water It Pays For Nearly Nothing”. Bloomberg, 23 September, 2017, available at

[6] “The fight to stop Nestlé from taking America’s water to sell in plastic bottles”, The Guardian on 29 October 2019, available at

[7] Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., 479 Mich. 280, 286 (2007).

[8] Ibid., Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters.

[9] John Louis Miller, “A Critical Look at Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters North America & the Michigan Supreme Court’s Recent Jurisprudence”, Digital Commons, pp. 16 (2008),
available at:

[10] Noah D. Hall, “Protecting Freshwater Resources in the Era of Global Water Markets: Lessons Learned from Bottled Water”, University of Denver Water Law Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 24(2009), available at SSRN:

[11] “ Challenges to Nestle’s Bottled Water Strategy”, Huffington Post, 21st September 2017, available at strategy_us_59c2dec0e4b0c87def88350a

[12] “Some Consumers Are Calling Poland Spring Water ‘A Collossal Fraud’, Fortune, 17th August, 2017, available at

[13] Supra n. 10,  Huffington Post

[14] “Michigan conservationists say Nestlé’s pumping of well water unsustainable”, CBS News, May 14, 2018 available at

[15] Supra n. 6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation.

[16] Supra n. 6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation.

[17] Sec. 1424, Safe Drinking Water Act (1974)

[18] “ Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation’s Contested Case Against the Nestlé Water Permit Is Right and Necessary”, Flow for water, June 8th 2018, available at

[19] “Nestlé’s Ice Mountain Bottled Water Leaves Nothing for Michigan’s Trout”, NRDC, June 1st 2018, available at

[20] Sec. 324.1701, Natural Resources And Environmental Protection Act (1994)

[21] Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., 479 Mich. 280, 317 (Mich. 2007) (dissenting opinion) (citing Ray v Mason Co Drain Commʹr, 393 Mich. 294, 305; 224 N.W.2d 883 (1975) (stating that MEPA grants standing to ʺany personʺ has been unquestioned for more than 30 years); West Michigan Environmental Action Council v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich. 741; 275 N.W.2d 538 (1979); Kimberly Hills Neighborhood Assʹn v Dion, 114 Mich. App. 495; 320 N.W.2d 668 (1982); Trout Unlimited, Muskegon‐White River Chapter v White Cloud, 195 Mich. App. 343; 489 N.W.2d 188 (1992); Nemeth v Abonmarche Dev, Inc, 457 Mich. 16; 576 N.W.2d 641 (1998).

[22] Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 592 (1992)

[23] Ibid, Lujan

[24] Supra at n.6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters

[25] Mich. Chiropractic Council v. Commʹr of the Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 475 Mich. 363, 369 (2006)

[26] Supra at n.6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters

[27] Supra at n.6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters

[28] Supra at n.6, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters

[29] Supra at n.7, Mich. Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters N. Am

[30] Steven Gursten,”Has the Michigan Supreme Court Lost its Way?”, Michigan personal Injury Information , available at;

 Nelson P. Miller, ʺJudicial Politicsʺ: Restoring the Michigan Supreme Court, 85 MICH. BAR. J. 38 (2006)

[31] Howard Yale Lederman, Judicial Overruling: Time for a New General Rule, 83 MICH. BAR J. 9, 22 (2004)

[32] David W. Robertson Et Al., Cases and Materials on Torts, (3rd ed.) 283 (2004)

[33] Unreported: Story of Stuff Project v United States Forest Department, WL 4637357(2018)

[34] “How Nestlé Gets Away With Pumping California’s Water for Next to Nothing”, Los Angeles Magazine, August 12, 2016, available at

[35] Ibid

[36] Supra n. 32, Story of Stuff Project v United States Forest Department.

[37] Supra n. 32, Story of Stuff Project v United States Forest Department.

[38] Supra n.33, Los Angeles Magazine.

[39] Supra n. 32, Story of Stuff Project v United States Forest Department.

[40] “Nestle: Forest Service shouldn’t infringe on water rights”, Desert Sun, 7th May, 2016, available at

[41] Ibid., Desert Sun.

[42] “Michigan conservationists say Nestlé’s pumping of well water unsustainable”, CBS News, May 14, 2018 available at

[43] “Challenges to Nestle’s Bottled Water Strategy”, Huffington Post, 21st September, 2017 available at

[44] Ibid., Huffington Post.

[45] Gaining Responsibility of Water Act, 2017 (H.R.23).

[46] Supra n. 31, Howard Yale Lederman.

[47] Supra n. 31, Howard Yale Lederman.

[48] Supra n. 31, Howard Yale Lederman.

[49] Supra at n.31, Howard Yale Lederman

[50] Tom Perkins, “The Fight to stop Nestle from taking American water to sell in plastic bottles”, The Guardian, 29th October 2019, available at

[51] Nisha Swinton, “Maine hands Nestle’ a seat on State Environmental Board”, Food and Water Watch, 30th January, 2018, available at

[52] Ibid. Nisha Swinton.

[53] Supra n. 51, Nisha Swinton

[54] Supra n. 51, Nisha Swinton

[55] Client Profile: Nestle SA, Open Secrets, December 02, 2020,

[56] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[57] Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck Says We Don’t Have a Right to Water, Believes We Do Have a Right to Water and Everyone’s Confused, Huffington Post, 25th May, 2013, available at

[58] Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, “Who owns Water?”, The Nation, pp. 5 (2nd September, 2002), available at

[59] Ibid, Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke. 


Legal Maxim (October 3, 2022) The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry. Retrieved from
The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry.” Legal Maxim – October 3, 2022,
Legal Maxim March 4, 2021 The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry., viewed October 3, 2022,<>
Legal Maxim – The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry. [Internet]. [Accessed October 3, 2022]. Available from:
The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry.” Legal Maxim – Accessed October 3, 2022.
The Bottled Controversy of Politics and Corruption- Nestle’s Water Industry.” Legal Maxim [Online]. Available: [Accessed: October 3, 2022]

Author: Yash Singhi

Designation: Junior Associate | Legal Research Analyst 

Organisation: Chambers of Senior Adv Soumendra Nath Mukherjee | FAS, Fintech Advisory Services

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
68 Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Rd, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Follow us:

Copyright © Legal Maxim 2020

error: Content is protected !!