Failure to plead with particularity dooms supplement false advertising claim

Nutrition Distribution, LLC v. New Health Ventures, LLC, 2017
WL 2547307, No. 16-cv-02338 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2017)
Nutrition Distribution sued New Health for false advertising
of supplement products containing various “Selective Androgen Receptor
Modulators (“SARMS”)” such as “Ostarine.” After New Health moved to dismiss,
Nutrition Distribution filed a proposed amended complaint for false advertising
(and RICO violations, of which no more will be said), based on New Health’s sale
of products containing Dimethazine (“DMZ”). 
Applying Rule 9(b), the court denied leave to amend on grounds of
futility and dismissed the complaint.
The court first found that the proposed complaint wasn’t futile
as barred by the primary jurisdiction doctrine. 
The basic claim was that New Health’s failure to disclose DMZ’s health
effects was misleading.  This claim doesn’t
depend on whether DMZ is “safe” or not. 
Instead, it is about misleading consumers through lack of disclosure; determining
misleadingness doesn’t require the FDA’s technical and policy expertise (as Pom Wonderful indicated).
Nutrition Distribution also sufficiently pled that DMZ was a
controlled substance because it is derived from, and structurally similar to,
Methastorone—a chemical already deemed to be an anabolic steroid under federal
law.  However, New Health’s alleged
failure to disclose that DMZ is banned by anti-doping organizations was legally
insufficient because it wasn’t an actionable omission. Under the Lanham Act,
omissions are only actionable if they render affirmative statements false or
misleading, and Nutrition Distribution didn’t identify any such statements,
only claims that New Health’s product was “hands down the strongest anabolic
Pre-Workout on the market today!” and “an extremely potent, high-intensity,
high-stimulant and highly anabolic pre-workout concoction.”

Likewise, pleading that New Health  “purposely made false and misleading
descriptions of fact concerning the nature, characteristics and qualities of
its DMZ products by … failing to disclose their status as controlled
substances and failing to disclose the overwhelming clinical evidence that such
products pose extreme health risks” was insufficient to plead a misleading
advertisement with particularity.  The
same was true with the initial complaint.

from Blogger

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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s