Facts

Plaintiff brought a class action complaint against defendant relating to its "IntenseX" supplements. He asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California express and implied warranty law, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendant labeled its product as "IntenseX" implying that the ingredients would enable "intense sex" even though the product was not effective as an aphrodisiac. Furthermore, he claimed that defendant's claims that IntenseX increased "Sexual Power and Performance" and was "designed to intensify your endurance, stamina and sexual performance" were false and misleading.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended in its motion for summary judgment that IntenseX was a dietary supplement that did not contain any prescription drug ingredients or claims that it would have any positive effect on or treat impotence, erectile dysfunction, and other sex-related problems.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion on all claims, except on Magnuson-Moss, which it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.