Asinga v. The Gatorade Company

Background

Issamade Asinga, a nationally regarded track and field athlete, received Gatorade’s 2022–2023 National Player of the Year Award in boys’ track and field. At a national ceremony, Gatorade gave him, among other products, Gatorade Recovery Gummies. The bottle displayed an NSF “Certified for Sport” logo, which represented that the product had been tested for substances banned by major athletic organizations.

Asinga alleged that he took two gummies after workouts and later tested positive for cardarine, a banned performance-enhancing drug. He alleged that gummies from the opened bottles he submitted also tested positive for cardarine. He further alleged that the relevant lot had been removed from the market, had not actually been certified by NSF, and had been improperly labeled. After the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal ruled against him, Asinga alleged that he was barred from certain competitions, stripped of world records, lost an athletic scholarship, and lost endorsement opportunities. That disciplinary decision was on appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport when this opinion was issued.

Asinga’s amended complaint asserted strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation causing risk of physical harm, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Gatorade Company moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Choice of Law

Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied New York’s choice-of-law principles. It applied New York law to the strict-liability, negligence, negligent-misrepresentation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because the parties identified no conflict affecting the motion. The court declined to decide whether New York or Texas law governed the tortious-interference claim because that claim failed under either state’s law.

Strict Products Liability, Negligence, and Negligent Misrepresentation

The court held that these claims were barred by New York’s economic-loss rule. That rule generally does not allow recovery in negligence or strict products liability for economic losses without a legally cognizable injury to a person or property.

Asinga alleged lost income and professional opportunities, and argued that ingesting cardarine caused physical harm. The court concluded that the positive drug test showed ingestion, but did not plausibly show that the cardarine caused physical injury or threatened tangible harm. The presence of the substance in his body was a physical change, but the alleged resulting harm was economic. The court also ruled that damage to reputation, lost professional opportunities, and related emotional harm did not overcome the economic-loss rule.

The court therefore held that Asinga’s strict-products-liability, negligence, and negligent-misrepresentation claims were barred.

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act protects consumers from false, misleading, or deceptive conduct, including misrepresentations about a product’s certification or quality. To sue under the Act, a person must qualify as a consumer by seeking or acquiring goods or services through a purchase or lease.

The court held that Asinga did not qualify as a consumer. His amended complaint repeatedly described the gummies as a gift, and it did not allege that the gummies were provided in exchange for a promise, rights, or another action by him. Potential marketing benefits to Gatorade did not establish a purchase or bargained-for exchange. The court therefore ruled that Asinga could not invoke the Act.

Tortious Interference with Contract

Asinga alleged that Gatorade interfered with his athletic scholarship and his agreement to follow the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. The court held that the amended complaint did not adequately describe either contract or identify particular contractual provisions.

The court also held that Asinga did not plausibly allege intentional interference. The complaint alleged that Gatorade failed to provide a sealed bottle from the relevant lot and that this prevented him from proving his innocence, but it did not allege that Gatorade intentionally caused him to ingest a banned substance or intentionally caused a contractual breach. The allegation that Gatorade acted intentionally was conclusory, and the well-pleaded facts did not show knowing misconduct rather than negligence. The court dismissed the tortious-interference claim.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Under New York law, an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim requires extreme and outrageous conduct, an intent to cause or reckless disregard for severe emotional distress, a causal connection, and severe emotional distress.

The court held that Asinga did not plausibly allege the required elements. Providing the allegedly mislabeled gummies and failing to produce a sealed bottle from the correct lot did not meet New York’s demanding standard for extreme and outrageous conduct. The complaint did not plausibly allege that Gatorade intended to cause Asinga severe emotional distress or recklessly disregarded a substantial probability of doing so. Finally, allegations that Asinga suffered depression and despair lacked enough detail about the severity, duration, or effects of his emotional distress. The court granted the motion to dismiss this claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to allow Asinga to file another amended complaint. He had already amended once after receiving Gatorade’s pre-motion letter and participating in a pre-motion conference. He had not requested another amendment or explained what additional facts could cure the identified deficiencies.

Judge Cathy Seibel granted The Gatorade Company’s motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.