Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-03257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Whyble v. Nature’s Bounty, Judge Roman dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice because they did not plausibly allege misleading advertising.
The eight named plaintiffs and the proposed classes of purchasers of the Osteo Bi-Flex products; The Nature’s Bounty Co. prevailed on its motion to dismiss.
What happened
Whyble v. The Nature’s Bounty Co. was a proposed class action by eight purchasers of Osteo Bi-Flex supplements. They claimed the company falsely advertised the products as providing joint-health benefits and asserted warranty, fraud, misrepresentation, unjust-enrichment, and state consumer-protection claims.
The court found that the studies cited by the plaintiffs mainly examined individual ingredients, different combinations or amounts, or osteoarthritis rather than the products’ broader claims about general joint health. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the product name, marketing, and references to joint comfort or a “joint shield” implied that the products treated osteoarthritis. It ruled that the claims were not preempted by federal food-and-drug labeling law, but dismissed them because the complaint did not plausibly allege false or deceptive statements.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the company’s motion to dismiss under the rule governing failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Because the court had previously identified the defects and the plaintiffs had not corrected them, it dismissed all claims with prejudice and terminated the case.
The detailed version
- Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co. · No. 7:20-cv-03257
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Eight plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against The Nature’s Bounty Co. over four Osteo Bi-Flex products. The plaintiffs alleged that the products’ advertising and packaging falsely or misleadingly claimed that the products could strengthen joints, support flexibility and mobility, support joint comfort, and help maintain joint cartilage. They alleged that the products did not provide the advertised joint-health benefits and that the company targeted consumers experiencing joint pain and stiffness.
The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, along with claims under consumer-protection statutes in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. They sought monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The company moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a plausible legal claim. The company argued that the plaintiffs’ studies did not test the products’ proprietary combination of ingredients at the same amounts used in the products and did not establish that the products’ general joint-health claims were false. The company also alternatively sought dismissal of the request for injunctive relief for lack of constitutional standing.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the company’s argument that federal food-and-drug law preempted the state-law claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs were asserting traditional claims that the company made false or misleading representations, not claims that the company failed to follow federal labeling requirements.
The court nevertheless dismissed the consumer-protection claims. It concluded that the studies cited in the Third Amended Complaint largely examined individual ingredients rather than the products’ combined formula. The court also found that the studies focused on treating or preventing osteoarthritis, while the products generally claimed to provide joint-health benefits and did not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. One study cited by the plaintiffs concerned knee pain and stiffness but did not refute the products’ broader claims about general joint health.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the name “Osteo Bi-Flex,” the phrase “joint comfort,” the reference to a “joint shield,” or the company’s marketing to people with osteoarthritis necessarily communicated that the products treated osteoarthritis. The court noted that “osteo” relates to bones and does not necessarily mean osteoarthritis. It also considered the product label’s statement that the products were not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled or that the marketing was unfair.
Because the common-law claims for express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud depended on allegations of false or misleading representations, the court dismissed those claims for the same reason. The court did not reach the company’s alternative argument concerning standing for injunctive relief or any other ground for dismissal.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the company’s motion to dismiss. The court stated that it had previously identified the precise defects in the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and that the plaintiffs had not cured those defects in the Third Amended Complaint. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion and the case.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.