Variation in supplement bottle contents defeats consumer protection claim

Gaminde v. Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., 2019 WL 1338724, No.
18-cv-300 (GLS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019)
Gaminde alleged that CVS Krill Oil contains only approximately
sixty percent of the 300mg of Omega-3 Krill Oil represented by the label, citing
“independent research funded by the United States Department of Agriculture[ ]
[ (USDA) ] and published in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.”  The court dismissed the claim because Gaminde
failed to allege that the bottle he
bought was similarly deficient based on testing.  “[N]umerous factors … affect the nutrient
content amount from sample to sample, lot to lot, and bottle to bottle,” and
this created an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, requiring Gaminde to
prove his entitlement to proceed by a preponderance of the evidence.
The allegation that his bottle didn’t contain the labeled
amount of oil was conclusory and unsubstantiated. Although “[t]he court must
take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of plaintiff, … jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that
showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the
party asserting it.”
The journal study wasn’t enough to cross the line from
speculation to a preponderance of the evidence. “Gaminde’s failure to allege
that he tested his bottle of CVS Krill Oil—indeed, his failure to make any
allegation regarding how he knows that it was mislabeled—is fatal.”  [The court noted that the journal study seemed
to test two lots, not two bottles, but that didn’t matter.]  The USDA study itself “concede[d]” that
“[t]here are many possible reasons for the supplements containing less than the
stated label amount of [Omega-3 Krill Oil],” including “fluctuations in the fatty
acid concentrations of fish during different times of the year.”  The sample size was small, and the study was
published before Gaminde made his purchase, creating a temporal issue. The USDA
study tested CVS Krill Oil purchased in the areas around Lafayette, Indiana and
Chesterfield, Missouri, whereas Gaminde made his purchase in or around
Schenectady, New York.  All this made the
study unhelpful to Gaminde.
Query: if bottle contents vary so much, isn’t the consistent
labeling false or misleading?  Since
consumers apparently can’t bring claims, it’s up to regulators to do it if it is
to be done at all.

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 )

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