Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D.N.Y.: NY damage claims in misleading advertising action relating to apple cider vinegar product may proceed, (Mar 25, 2026)

By Sara Cracau, J.D.

Taking all the allegations as true, the court found that the consumers adequately asserted an injury-in-fact.

A federal district court in New York has denied in part and granted in part the motion of a dietary supplement maker to dismiss a consumers’ misleading advertising action arising from sale of an apple cider vinegar product, finding that the consumers adequately pleaded standing to seek damages under New York law. Because the product contained less than four percent acetic acid and New York mandates a minimum content of four percent for products such as the supplement, the consumers’ allegations that the product is adulterated in violation of New York’s General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 survived. However, the claims based on California and Pennsylvania state laws failed for being conclusory (Ama v. Nature’s Truth LLC, No. 25-cv-3787 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2026)).

Background. Apple cider vinegar is a type of vinegar that is manufactured from fermented apple juice used for weight loss and other health uses. In the process of making it, the alcohol is broken down into acetic acid. Use of apple cider vinegar is widespread with a market size estimated at nearly $650 million in 2024 and is projected to grow to more than $1 billion by 2032. Because apple cider vinegar can taste sour in its liquid form, a method was developed to convert the product into powder which is believed to allow it to ensure that consumers receive the same health benefits as those from the liquid form. Between 2022 and 2024, four consumers purchased an apple cider vinegar dietary supplement in the form of powder capsules to assist them with weight management. When they tested 12 sample units of the supplement, they discovered, however, that it contained only two percent acetic acid. They alleged that the law requires that the product contain at least four percent acetic acid to be called apple cider vinegar and, otherwise, its contents are inefficacious and worthless. Therefore, they filed an action claiming violations of various New York, California, and Pennsylvania state laws. The manufacturer moved to dismiss.

Standing. The court found that the four consumers had standing to sue to pursue their monetary damages. The court found that, because the consumers alleged that apple cider vinegar containing less than four percent acetic acid did not provide the health benefits that are provided by four or five percent acetic acid, that was adequate to allege a cognizable injury. Furthermore, the consumers alleged that apple cider vinegar containing less than four percent acetic acid makes the supplements worth less than what the consumers paid for them. The court concluded that it’s plausible that apple cider vinegar’s health benefits are linked to its acetic acid content and that a marginally lower acetic acid percentage could mean marginally decreased health benefits. Taking all the allegations as true, the court found that the consumers adequately asserted an injury-in-fact. Furthermore, the court found that the consumers plausibly alleged a meaningful link between the injury they suffered and the defect or misrepresentation in the supplement that they purchased. They tested 12 representative samples using a well-accepted method and they identified the lot numbers to show that these were available for sale and consumption during the period in which the consumers regularly purchased the supplements.

Claims. Because the supplement contained less than four percent acetic acid and New York mandates a minimum content of four percent for products such as the supplement, the consumers’ allegations that the product is adulterated in violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 and 350 survived. The consumers sufficiently alleged deceptive consumer business practices under those statutes. However, the court found that they lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because, as they were now aware of the misrepresentation, there is no risk that they would be harmed in the future as they would likely not purchase the supplement again. Unlike New York law, California law does not require products such as the supplement to contain a minimum of four percent acetic acid. Although the consumers alleged that apple cider vinegar containing less than four percent acetic acid is worthless, they failed to substantiate these conclusory allegations with direct evidence. Therefore, the court dismissed the claims based on California and Pennsylvania law, giving the consumers leave to amend their complaint.

The case is No. 25-cv-3787 (AS).

Judge: Subramanian, A.

Attorneys: Michael D. Braun (Kuzyk Law LLP) for Lynn Ama. Amy P. Lally (Sidley Austin LLP) for Nature's Truth, LLC.

Companies: Nature's Truth, LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices NewYorkNews