Facts

Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. sells the Boost Glucose Control and Boost Glucose Control High Protein products that displayed and advertised that they can "help manage blood sugar" and are "designed for people with diabetes." On Nestle's own website, a six-pack of the Nestle Boost Original costs $7.95, while the Boost Glucose Control six-pack sells for $9.48. In 2021, the Federal Trade Commission and Food & Drug Administration sent several cease-and-desist letters to companies suspected of advertising unproven treatments or cures for diabetes. On December 20, 2021, two California residents and one New York resident brought a putative consumer class action against Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, New York General Business Law, California False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that the claims on the products misled them and other consumers that the products falsely would have some affirmatively therapeutic impact on their blood glucose levels or otherwise mitigate, treat, or prevent pre-diabetes or diabetes. Moreover, plaintiffs argued that they specifically purchased the products based on the products' diabetes-related representations and that a reasonable consumer would believe that the products would treat their prediabetes and diabetes from these representations. Further, plaintiffs contended that the statements were false because defendant's own clinical trial concluded that these products were only associated with a lesser rise in glucose levels as compared to another unidentified nutritional drink. Plaintiffs also alleged that the products were sold in the health and nutritional supplement section of the grocery stores and not in aisles with other 'low sugar' drinks, suggesting they were a novel diabetes treatment. Finally, plaintiffs maintained that they suffered a cognizable injury by paying a price premium due to defendant's deceptive conduct since the products were more expensive per ounce than other sugar-free and low-sugar nutritional drinks.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.