V Shred, LLC v. Kramer, 2026 WL 895614, No.
2:25-cv-01341-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2026)

V Shred is a health and wellness company specializing in
“online exercise training programs, exercise apparel, and nutritional
supplements.”

Kramer is a social media influencer with millions of
followers who promotes “online exercise training programs, exercise apparel,
and nutritional supplements” and allegedly directly competes with V Shred.

V Shred sued for Lanham Act false advertising, alleging
among other things that Kramer uses the catch phrase “Fuck V Shred” on his
social media profiles as “a discount code consumers can use” for products
promoted by Kramer.

The court found that the complaint alleged some provably false
statements, while others weren’t identified specifically enough (though the
court granted leave to amend).

As to a video titled “Mini Golf With V Shred in Las Vegas,”
it was not enough to allege that this was false because V Shred was not present
or in any way associated with the video. “Here, there was no unauthorized use
of an image, but rather there was merely a tagline reference to V Shred. The
leap from using a tagline to arguing that it equates to promoting the
defendant’s products is not plausible. Here, as alleged, there were no products
offered for sale and V Shred was not even discussed in the video.” Dismissed
with prejudice.

As to an appearance on the “TSL Time” podcast, Kramer allegedly
falsely stated “the company of V Shred isn’t owned by a health and wellness
company. It’s owned by a marketing agency. Just a bunch of marketing dudes”; he
also allegedly stated that V Shred “is a ‘cancer,’ ” “sells ‘crash diets,’ ”
that “[principal] Sant is an ‘actor’ who ‘doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talk
about,’ ” and that he plans to “knock the legs out from under [V Shred] because
they are a garbage company.”  He also allegedly
falsely stated that V Shred has “1,200 or 1,300 complaints filed with the
Better Business Bureau this past year alone.”

Kramer argued that his statements about ownership were
nonfalsifiable opinion, and that his claims about the BBB complaints were an
estimate “based on memory.” The court found that both statements were
falsifiable, and because he allegedly promoted his own products instead, they
could be a commercial advertisement. The “estimate” defense “is essentially an
admission that the BBB statements were indeed demonstrably false.”

Finally, Kramer allegedly posted a video stating that “they
only pay their coaches $9 per client.” V Shred alleged this statement was false
because they pay their coaches different amounts for different types of plans.
The qualifier “allegedly” did not save this statement from falsifiability. This
was also plausibly an ad; Kramer spent 58 of the 93-second video criticizing V
Shred before promoting his own company and attempting to recruit customers,
including that he will pay his coaches “double the market standard.”

from Blogger https://tushnet.blogspot.com/2026/04/prefacing-statements-with-allegedly-or.html