Hamzeh v. Pharmavite LLC

Background

Guity Hamzeh filed an amended putative class-action complaint against Pharmavite LLC and Nature Made Nutritional Products. She alleges that several Nature Made fish-oil capsule products were deceptively labeled “helps support a healthy heart.” According to the complaint, consumers bought the capsules because they believed they provided heart-health benefits, but scientific evidence allegedly shows that fish-oil capsules do not promote a healthy heart.

Hamzeh proposes a nationwide class of people who purchased one or more Nature Made fish-oil capsules, along with a multi-state consumer-protection subclass and a California subclass. Her claims include alleged violations of consumer-protection laws in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, and New York; claims under California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law; intentional misrepresentation; breach of express warranty; quasi-contract; and negligent misrepresentation.

Pharmavite moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally recognized and plausibly supported claim. Pharmavite also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike allegations from the complaint.

Standing

Pharmavite argued that Hamzeh, whom the opinion identifies as a California resident who purchased the capsules in California, could not assert claims under the laws of states where she did not reside and was not injured. The court explained that courts in the Ninth Circuit have disagreed about whether this issue should be addressed as standing at the pleading stage or later during class certification.

The court declined to dismiss the nationwide-class and subclass claims for lack of standing. It reasoned that Hamzeh and the proposed class members allegedly suffered the same type of injury—purchasing one or more of the challenged products—and that Pharmavite did not contest her standing under California law. The court also noted that the parties had not adequately analyzed the differences among the other states’ laws or the related choice-of-law issues. It denied the motion on this ground for now.

Federal Preemption

Pharmavite argued that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, expressly preempted Hamzeh’s state-law and common-law claims. Federal preemption can prevent state law from imposing labeling requirements that differ from or add to federal requirements.

The court rejected Pharmavite’s argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It distinguished a prior Ninth Circuit decision because Hamzeh alleged that scientific studies directly supported the claim that the capsules did not promote heart health, rather than seeking to require proof that the capsules prevent or treat heart disease. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that the “helps support a healthy heart” statement was false or misleading.

The court also rejected Pharmavite’s argument that the claims improperly distinguished between obtaining nutrients by eating fish and taking fish-oil capsules. Hamzeh challenged the representations about the capsules, not representations about eating fish. The court therefore declined to dismiss the claims on preemption grounds.

Substantiation

Pharmavite argued that the complaint asserted an improper lack-of-substantiation claim. The court explained that California law does not allow private plaintiffs simply to demand that advertisers substantiate their claims, but it does allow plaintiffs to challenge advertising claims as false or misleading, including by attacking the advertiser’s purported substantiation.

The court concluded that Hamzeh alleged that the label was affirmatively false, not merely that Pharmavite lacked enough scientific support for it. Because the complaint cited studies and alleged that the capsules had no heart-health benefits, the court held that this argument did not warrant dismissal.

Motion to Strike

Pharmavite asked the court to strike allegations about scientific evidence, “unidentified products,” and variations on the challenged heart-health representation. The court denied that request. It found that the scientific allegations were central to the case, that the unidentified products could be relevant, and that concerns about product differences and the exact label language were better addressed during class certification.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court denied Pharmavite’s motion to dismiss and to strike. It directed the parties to meet and confer about the scope of the proposed class claims, including whether they could agree to add named plaintiffs from other states or narrow the case to California-law claims. The court invited Pharmavite to file a renewed motion to dismiss limited to issues concerning state law, choice of law, and whether the proposed class allegations satisfy Rule 23’s typicality, adequacy, and commonality requirements. The court also set a case-management conference for March 18, 2025, and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement.