Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation

Background

A class of New York consumers, represented by Mary Beth Montera, sued Premier Nutrition Corporation over claims that its Joint Juice product was marketed as providing joint-health benefits. The claims were brought under New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350, which address deceptive business practices and false advertising.

After a nine-day trial in 2022, the jury found Premier liable under both statutes. It found that Premier had sold 166,249 units of Joint Juice in New York during the class period and that the class’s actual damages were approximately $1.4 million. Montera sought $550 per violation by combining the $50 statutory amount under § 349 with the $500 statutory amount under § 350, for a total of approximately $91 million.

The court previously reduced the award to $50 per violation, resulting in approximately $8.3 million. The Ninth Circuit later vacated and remanded the § 349 statutory-damages award, directing this court to reconsider Premier’s substantive due process challenge under the factors identified in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc. The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether the $8.3 million award was constitutional.

Arguments on Remand

On remand, Montera sought $83,124,500, or $500 per violation under GBL § 350. Premier renewed its constitutional challenge and argued, based partly on the legislative history of the New York statutes, that the class should receive only actual damages.

The court rejected Premier’s argument that the text of GBL §§ 349 and 350 prohibited class-wide statutory damages. The court explained that the statutes’ plain language did not completely foreclose aggregated statutory damages. The court nevertheless considered New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 901(b), which generally bars statutory-penalty class actions in New York state court unless the Legislature authorizes them, as part of the analysis of the statutes’ goals.

Constitutional Analysis

The court applied the approach required by Wakefield. That approach asks whether aggregated statutory damages are extraordinarily large compared with the statutes’ purposes and whether they greatly exceed the statutes’ compensation and deterrence goals. The court also considered factors from Six Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, including the amount awarded per plaintiff, the total award, the nature and persistence of the violations, Premier’s culpability, comparable damages awards, whether the violations were substantive or technical, and the circumstances of the case.

The court concluded that the requested $83 million would greatly exceed the class’s approximately $1.4 million in actual damages and would be largely punitive. It recognized that the New York statutes served compensation and deterrence purposes and also had punitive goals. But the court found that an $83 million award was not proportionate to the conduct, particularly because Premier had discontinued Joint Juice and the opportunities to commit the same offense were not unlimited.

The court found that the conduct was substantive rather than merely technical. It relied on evidence that Premier continued marketing Joint Juice for joint-health and joint-pain benefits despite studies questioning the benefits of the relevant dosage. The court also noted that the harm was economic and intangible, including wasted money, disappointment, and lost hope, but there was no allegation that Joint Juice caused physical harm.

Reduction of the Award

The court stated that the Ninth Circuit had not provided a specific method for reducing a statutory-damages award after finding a due process problem. Balancing the statutory minimums against the constitutional concern, the court concluded that $50 per violation—corresponding to aggregate statutory damages under GBL § 349 alone—was proportionate to the statutes’ compensation, deterrence, and punishment goals.

Disposition

The court held that the requested $83 million was “grossly punitive” and wholly disproportionate to the legislative goals. It awarded the class $8,312,450 in aggregated statutory damages, calculated as $50 for each of the 166,249 violations. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg on March 10, 2025.