This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
False and Misleading Representation

The People of the State of California v. Irwin Naturals Inc., et al.

Published: Mar. 12, 2011 | Result Date: Feb. 1, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2011-00445453 Settlement –  $2,650,000

Facts

The district attorney offices in Napa, Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Orange, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano and Sonoma counties, in the name of the People of the State of California, sued Irwin Naturals, Inc., and its owner Klee Irwin. The lawsuit related to defendants' marketing and sales of numerous dietary supplement products. Laboratory tests showed that certain of defendants' alleged weight loss dietary supplements (Triple Action Weight Control, 10 Day Hoodia Diet and Fast Action Hoodia Diet), marketed as containing an ingredient derived from the plant species Hoodia gordonii, in fact contained no detectable levels of Hoodia. Other laboratory tests revealed that a number of defendants' dietary supplements (System Six, Green Tea Fat Metabolizer, Green Tea Fat Burner, and Green Tea Fat Meltdown) contained lead in concentrations exceeding that allowed by Proposition 65.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendants engaged in false and misleading advertising in connection with its dietary supplement products, because of defendants' failure to provide competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the advertising claims made for these products. Plaintiff alleged that because of these false and misleading claims, defendants' products were misbranded, in violation of the Sherman Law. Plaintiff also alleged that because of the lead levels in these products, defendants violated Proposition 65 for having failed to place proper warnings on them. Further, plaintiff contended that defendants were required but failed to reimburse customers in a timely manner for returned products, and charged individuals although products were not ordered.

Result

Defendants paid $1,950,000 in civil penalties, $600,000 in investigative costs, and $100,000 in restitution, for a total settlement amount of $2,650,000.


#104431

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390