Primary jurisdiction doesn’t defeat supplement false advertising claim

Nutrition Distribution LLC v. Custom Nutraceuticals LLC, No.
CV-16-00173, 2016 WL 3654277 (D. Ariz. Jul. 8, 2016)
The parties compete in the nutritional supplement market; defendant
Custom sells Ostarine, a selective androgen receptor modulator (“SARM”) with
effects similar to those of anabolic steroids.
Lanham Act claim: Distribution alleged that Custom labeled Ostarine
products as “not for human consumption,” while simultaneously representing that
Ostarine was a body-building drug and an “[e]asy to dose oral SARM.” Also,
Custom allegedly failed to disclose that the World Anti-Doping Agency and the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency have banned the use of SARMs, while targeting
competitive athletes.  Moreover, Custom
allegedly represented that Ostarine has few side effects, when medical evidence
suggests that it has potentially serious side effects.
Custom argued that the court should abstain from deciding
these issues based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The court
disagreed.  “The Court need not consult
the FDA to determine whether it is false and misleading to label a product as ‘not
for human consumption’ while touting the benefits of such consumption.”  Likewise, the materiality of the omission of
the anti-doping agencies’ bans might not even implicate the FDA’s regulatory
scheme; the FDCA doesn’t even prohibit all omissions that might be material to
a consumer, but only those that are material “with respect to consequences
which may result from the use of the article”:
Even assuming the FDA could require
Defendants to disclose that their product has been banned by major sports
agencies, the issue is not one that implicates the agency’s technical and
policy expertise. Indeed, Plaintiff may have a superior understanding of how
consumers of body building products would react to this information.
Not even the statements about side effects were beyond the
court’s scope.  Though the FDA has primary
jurisdiction to regulate statements about the side effects of drugs, Custom
denied that Ostarine was a drug. “Having denied the FDA’s authority to regulate
Ostarine as a drug, Defendants cannot invoke the same authority to avoid a suit
under the Lanham Act.”  Though the FDA has
the authority to determine whether Ostarine is safe enough to be sold in
interstate commerce, this case was about whether Ostarine was as safe as Custom
claimed, which didn’t require the court to opine on the technical and policy
questions committed to the FDA.

RICO: no.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/29C4mWP

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s