Post Profile






court says product reformulation might be deceptive if survey supports claim

Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Driven Sports, 2015 WL 12645002, No. LA CV13-06195 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) Nutrition sued defendants over their sales of a nutrition supplement product called “Craze.” In July 2013, defendants discontinued the sale of the initial version of Craze after it was reported that the ingredients included amphetamine, amphetamine analogues and/or methamphetamine analogues, none of which was identified on the product label.
read more

share

Related Posts


court rules that Pom Wonderful precludes claims that supplement is unsafe etc.

Industries / Law : 43(B)log

ThermoLife Intern., LLC v. Gaspari Nutrition, Inc., No. CV–11–01056, 2014 WL 99017 (D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2014) This dispute has been around for a while. The court’s introduction gives you a sense of the case: “The briefs and statements...

Lawyer's anti-supplement video protected by anti-SLAPP law but claim still survives

Industries / Law : 43(B)log

Brain Research Labs, LLC v. Clarke, 2012 WL 239578 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.) BRL sued lawyer Thomas Clarke and his firm, alleging false and defamatory statements about Procera, a BRL product marketed as a supplement. Defendants moved to st...

record-free consumer class action certified as ascertainable

Industries / Law : 43(B)log

McCrary v. Elations Co., LLC, 2014 WL 1779243, No. EDCV 13–00242 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) The court certified a class alleging the usual California statutory claims against a supplement called Elations, whose label claimed a “clini...

Primary jurisdiction doesn't defeat supplement false advertising claim

Industries / Law : 43(B)log

Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Custom Nutraceuticals LLC, No. CV-16-00173, 2016 WL 3654277 (D. Ariz. Jul. 8, 2016) The parties compete in the nutritional supplement market; defendant Custom sells Ostarine, a selective androgen recept...

Briefly noted: consumers challenging express substantiation claims

Industries / Law : 43(B)log

McCrary v. Elations Co., No. EDCV 13–0242, 2013 WL 6403073 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2013) While rejecting claims based on defendant’s supplement’s general ad claims to support joint health and the like, the court allows McCrary to challe...

Comments


Copyright © 2016 Regator, LLC