Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: No weight given to false representation claims regarding green coffee extract, (Apr 20, 2016)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

Claims that a manufacturer’s representations concerning the weight loss benefits of its JavaSLIM Green Coffee Extract supplement violated California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws were dismissed by the federal district court in San Francisco (Aloudi v. Intramedic Research Group LLC, April 19, 2016, Gilliam, H.).

In February 2015, Alhareth Aloudi filed a putative class action complaint against Intramedic Research Group, LLC (IRG) based on its advertising representations regarding JavaSLIM. The complaint alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and False Advertising Law (FAL). The complaint also alleged violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.

Aloudi’s amended complaint asserted that IRG’s statements regarding JavaSLIM were false because JavaSLIM: (1) did not provide rapid or significant weight loss, or reduction in body-mass index; (2) was never clinically proven to provide any of the promised benefits; and (3) was not based on any breakthrough in weight loss research. Aloudi further asserted that the IRG’s purported clinical proof of JavaSLIM’s key ingredient was a falsified study that was later the target of an FTC enforcement action and, in reality, showed that the JavaSLIM did not work.

The court noted that private litigants may not bring claims based on a lack of substantiation. Aloudi’s additional allegations—that the study was not only fraudulent but actually showed that green coffee extract was ineffective for weight loss—failed to transform his substantiation claims into falsity claims because (1) the FTC complaint referenced by Aloudi was not reliable evidence of any conclusion regarding the study and (2) there were insufficient facts that the study was the same “double-blind” study that IRG referenced in it JavaSLIM representations.

The court determined that Aloudi did not adequately explain why the JavaSLIM representations were false because his attempts to do so were either irrelevant or conclusory. Furthermore, Aloudi’s omission allegations failed to state a claim because they were based on IRG’s omitting details regarding JavaSLIM’s lack of efficacy, which Aloudi had failed to prove.

The case is No. 15-cv-00882-HSG.

Attorneys: Beatrice Skye Resendes (Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC) for Alhareth Aloudi. Christopher B. Sullivan (Price Parkinson Kerr PLLC) for Intramedic Research Group, LLC.

Companies: Intramedic Research Group, LLC

Cases: Advertising ConsumerProtection CaliforniaNews