Magpayo v. Walmart Inc.

Background

Pearl Magpayo challenged statements on Walmart’s Spring Valley Fish Oil Omega-3 supplement labels, including that fish oil is a source of omega-3 fatty acids that support heart health, along with the words “Heart Health” and a heart symbol. She brought claims concerning false or misleading advertising and labeling, including express and implied warranty, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and injunctive-relief claims.

In an earlier order, the court determined that the challenged statements were “structure/function” claims—claims about how a product supports or affects the body. The court gave Magpayo leave to amend either to support a non-preempted implied-disease claim or to plead an actionable structure/function claim. In her second amended complaint, she dropped the implied-disease theory and pursued the structure/function theory.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a plaintiff challenging a structure/function claim to allege that taking the supplements provides no benefit for “heart health” and to cite identified scientific studies containing evidence directly matched to that allegation.

Magpayo cited studies, papers, and articles concerning whether omega-3 supplements prevent or reduce cardiovascular disease or adverse cardiovascular events. But the court found that one article she relied on reviewed product labels rather than conducting an efficacy study or randomized trial, and that she did not identify or cite the underlying studies as showing no heart-health benefit. The other studies addressed cardiovascular disease or adverse events but did not identify evidence or conclusions that omega-3 supplements provide no benefit to heart health.

The court also rejected Magpayo’s reliance on a study indicating that omega-3 supplements did not significantly change homocysteine, an inflammatory marker. The court said that a lack of effect on one marker did not support the broader allegation that the supplements provide no support for heart health.

Magpayo separately alleged that the supplements could increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. The court found that the cited studies did not support a claim that use at the dose recommended on Walmart’s products increased that risk. One study involved an unspecified dose and stated that no causal relationship could be drawn. Another involved four grams of omega-3 fish oil, which was above the one-gram amount recommended for the products. The court also noted evidence that a lower dose showed no apparent increased risk and that a higher dose did not produce a statistically significant increased risk.

The court rejected Magpayo’s argument that consumers might normally take more than the recommended amount. The court found no similar allegation that reasonable consumers regularly exceeded the product’s recommended daily dose. It also explained that the applicable federal statute considers ordinary conditions of use only when the label does not suggest or recommend conditions of use; these products did provide a recommended level of use.

Disposition

The court concluded that Magpayo had not adequately pleaded a false and misleading structure/function claim under California law, despite having been given leave to amend. The court stated that her failure also meant that her express and implied warranty, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and injunctive-relief claims failed.

The court granted Magpayo’s unopposed motion for leave to file supplemental authority. It granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice.