Sponsored By

Amino Acid Drink Suit Broken Down by Court

Plaintiff claimed that “all natural” on a powdered amino drink label is false and misleading.

Alston & Bird

December 12, 2023

2 Min Read

The Northern District of Illinois broke down parts of Amino Acid Drink Suit Broken Down by Court plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant’s prominent “All Natural Amino Drink” label was false and misleading. The plaintiff alleges that the label on the powdered amino drink product is false and misleading because the product is not “all natural”; rather, it contains synthetic DL-malic acid. The defendant moved to dismiss, claiming the plaintiff lacked standing to represent a class based on a drink flavor he did not purchase, lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, and failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading fraud claims.

The court rejected the defendant’s flavor-based standing argument, explaining that because the labeling and claims at issue between two flavors of the product are substantially similar, the plaintiff does have standing to seek relief on behalf of customers who purchased each flavor.

The court also rejected the company’s argument that the “all natural” label was intended to convey that the product provides “all natural” amino acids, not that the entire product is all natural. In rejecting this argument, the court highlighted that the product does not say “all natural amino acids.”

Rather, the court found the company “actively preferred that its label retain some level of ambiguity” through its “All Natural Amino Drink” label and so the ambiguous label could mislead a reasonable consumer.

It wasn’t all good news for the plaintiff, however — the court permanently tossed the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, holding he lacks standing to bring such a claim because he couldn’t be deceived again in the future. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege his common-law consumer fraud claim because he failed to allege that the company intended to defraud its customers but granted leave to amend that claim.

This report is from an Alston & Bird debriefing for the case of Daly v. FitLife Brands Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00762 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2023) and selected by Packaging Digest with permission from the international law firm. This article and others can be seen in the recently published 14-page Food & Beverage Digest November 2023 online issue that features briefs on New Lawsuits Filed, Motions to Dismiss, Class Certification, Appeals, and Voluntary Dismissals.

About the Author(s)

Alston & Bird

Alston & Bird

Alston & Bird is an international law firm that practice across a wide range of industries—locally, nationally, and globally. It employs more than  800 lawyers in 13 offices throughout the United States, Europe, the UK, and Asia. The firm provides legal services to both domestic and international clients who conduct business worldwide. These services include issues related to corporate & finance, intellectual property, litigation, tax, regulatory and specialty.

Sign up for the Packaging Digest News & Insights newsletter.

You May Also Like