Facts

Premier Nutrition Corporation produces and advertises Joint Juice, a dietary supplement that helps support joint health. Joint Juice's main ingredients include glucosamine hydrochloride, chondroitin sulfate, and other vitamins and minerals. The challenged Joint Juice products included ready-to-drink supplement drinks, on-the-go drink mixes, and easy shot supplements. Joint Juice labels and advertises itself as a product that can provide certain joint health benefits, such as keeping cartilage lubricated and flexible, keeping joints healthy and flexible, and maintaining healthy and happy joints. The label also expressly stated that the product was not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Plaintiffs were residents of New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania who sought to represent classes of Joint Juice purchasers in their respective states. Plaintiffs brought a class action against Premier, alleging violations of the New York General Business Laws.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated New York General Business Law by marketing and advertising Joint Juice as providing joint health benefits, including relief from arthritis symptoms, that it does not provide in a way that is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances. In particular, they argued that glucosamine was not effective in providing the represented joint health benefits, including relief from joint pain. Plaintiffs also maintained that defendant intended to convey its message about the health benefits of Joint Juice in a way that was misleading, or likely to affect a consumer's choice of or conduct regarding the product. Plaintiffs further alleged that they suffered injury when they purchased the Joint Juice products and did not receive the full value of their purchase.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it had no intent to deceive consumers in advertising and selling its Joint Juice products. Defendant also maintained that it had a valid defense to the NY General Business Law claims because it complied with FDA statutes, rules, and regulations for structure/function claims. Defendant further argued that plaintiffs' state law claims were inconsistent with and contradicted by federal law and thus, were preempted. Defendant denied all other contentions in the complaint.

Result

The jury found in favor of plaintiffs. A hearing will be held at a later date to determine the amount of statutory damages.

Other Information

Related Cases: 3:16-cv-06685-RS (Caiazzo-FL); 3:16-cv-06703-RS (Lux-CT); 3:16-cv-06704-RS (Ravinsky-PA); 3:16-cv-06708-RS (Sandoval-NM); 3:16-cv-06721-RS (Dent-IL); 3:16-cv-07078-RS (Simmons-MI); 3:16-cv-07090-RS (Spencer-MD); 3:16-cv-06980-RS (Fishon-NY); 3:17-cv-00054-RS (Schupp-MA); 3:19-cv-00875-RS (Bland-CA)