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
Misrepresentation
Untrue, Misleading, and Deceptive Advertising

Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman, and Logan Reichert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cytosport Inc.

Published: Dec. 4, 2020 | Result Date: Oct. 29, 2020 | Filing Date: Jan. 23, 2015 |

Case number: 15-CV-0165 L DHB Settlement –  $12,000,000

Judge

M. James Lorenz

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jeffrey R. Krinsk
(Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP)

Trenton R. Kashima
(Milberg, Coleman, Bryson, Phillips & Grossman)


Defendant

David P. Burke
(Neil, Dymott, Frank, McFall, Trexler, McCabe & Hudson APC)

Matthew I. Kaplan
(Tucker Ellis LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs Chayla Clay, Erica Ehrlichman, Logan Reichert, and Chris Roman, filed a putative class action lawsuit against defendant Cytosport, inc., which manufactured and marketed Muscle Milk branded protein shakes sold in powder and liquid forms. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act as well as Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Michigan's Consumer Protection Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant misrepresented the amount of lean protein and lean lipids contained in the product. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant's misleading advertisements and product labeling violated California, Florida, and Michigan consumer protection statutes, state warranty laws, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiffs' contentions and moved for summary judgment.

Result

Defendant agreed to pay $12 million to settle the case.

Other Information

The court had granted Defendant's summary judgment motion with respect to Plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violation of some provisions of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The court had also certified a nationwide class for violations of California Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws as to certain products, as well as California, Florida and Michigan subclasses for violations of their respective consumer protections laws.


#136095

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

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