Whyble v. The Nature's Bounty Co.

Background

Carol Whyble, Anthony Brown, Rebecca Carranza, Sue Demele, Sherry Greene, Renee Randall, Brenda Tucker, and Charles Geoffrey Woods filed a proposed class action against The Nature’s Bounty Co. They alleged that the company falsely and misleadingly advertised four Osteo Bi-Flex products as providing joint-health benefits, including strengthening joints and supporting flexibility, mobility, and joint comfort.

The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violations of consumer-protection statutes in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. They sought damages and an injunction. The defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim.

Federal Preemption

The defendant argued that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, preempted the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Federal preemption means that federal law displaces or overrides certain state-law requirements.

The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the plaintiffs were not trying to impose labeling requirements different from federal law. Instead, they alleged that the defendant’s existing representations about the products were false and misleading. The court therefore held that the state-law claims were not preempted.

Failure to Plausibly Plead Deception

The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the products’ claims were false, misleading, or deceptive. The plaintiffs argued that glucosamine and chondroitin could not provide the advertised joint-health benefits and relied on several clinical studies.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ general assertion about studies concerning cartilage lacked a sufficient factual basis because they did not identify those studies. The court also found that the five identified studies did not adequately support the claims. Two studies concerned preventing or slowing osteoarthritis, while the product advertising did not state that the products would treat, cure, or prevent osteoarthritis. Three other studies involved particular groups, including people with chronic knee pain, athletes, or overweight or obese women. The court reasoned that results concerning those groups could not plausibly disprove broad claims that the products improve joint health for all consumers.

The court also noted that the studies examined glucosamine or glucosamine hydrochloride, while the products contained several active ingredients in varying formulations, including a proprietary ingredient and, depending on the product, chondroitin, methylsulfonylmethane, or vitamin D. The court said the plaintiffs had not provided clinical studies showing that the complete products failed to provide the advertised joint-health benefits. It distinguished proving that advertising is false from merely showing that the advertising lacks scientific substantiation.

Because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege false or misleading advertising, the court also ruled that their unfair-business-practices claims failed. The same defect defeated their common-law claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, which depended on alleged deception or material misrepresentations.

Disposition

Judge Roman granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice. The court granted them leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by December 1, 2023. The court directed the defendant to answer or seek permission to move in response by December 18, 2023. The order stated that claims previously dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice if the plaintiffs did not timely amend.