Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—DRUGS—N.D. Ga.: Court gives UFC fighter another chance to show damages in case against dietary supplement maker, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

The fighter will have an opportunity to recover damages under the Tennessee Products Liability Act for noneconomic harm.

A federal district court in Georgia granted in part and denied in part Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals’ motion to dismiss a case brought by a fighter who was suspended for failing a drug test after consuming one of the company’s dietary supplements. The court interpreted each of the fighter’s causes of action as a products liability claim, and choice of law directed the court to interpret the claims under the Tennessee Products Liability Act. Although the fighter’s case was time-barred under Tennessee law, Georgia procedural law extended the statute of limitations period to two years. Hi-Tech denied liability because the fighter misused the supplements, and, even if he did not, he could not collect damages because his injury was purely economic and he did not establish an exact amount in his complaint. The court rejected the misuse argument and, while it agreed the fighter could not collect on economic injury, denied the motion to dismiss on other recovery and granted the fighter 14 days to amend his complaint to specify damages. The court granted Hi-Tech’s motion to dismiss the fighter’s risk of future injury, offensive conduct, and breach of express warranty claims (Saint Preux v. Wheat, No. 1:25-CV-3342-TWT (N.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff was a UFC fighter who claimed he failed a drug test because Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals mislabeled and deceptively marketed dietary supplements. The fighter attested that before consuming the supplements, he reviewed their labels for any substances banned by the Controlled Substances Act, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), or World Anti-Doping Agency. In September 2023, USADA notified the fighter he had failed his drug test, which came back positive for “illegal anabolic steroids…traceable to the Hi-Tech products.” USADA sanctioned the fighter for six months for violating UFC’s Anti-Doping Policy.

In April 2025, the fighter brought this case against Hi-Tech, its founder and CEO, and a “supposed alias” company. His complaint raised eight causes of action based on the allegedly mislabeled supplements and resulting USADA sanction: (1) negligence per se; (2) strict liability; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) negligent manufacturing defect; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (6) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (7) negligence; and (8) battery of negligent touching.

Choice of law. Hi-Tech asserted the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA) governed this case. For tort claims, Georgia courts sitting in diversity apply Georgia procedural law and the substantive law of the state where the tort was committed. However, Georgia will not apply a foreign state’s common law, and “even if a tort was committed in another state, Georgia courts do not apply the substantive law of that state unless codified in statute.” The TPLA “governs all products liability claims” and “codifies…and supersedes common law claims for personal injuries stemming from alleged defects in products.” The court interpreted each cause of action listed above as a products liability claim subject to the TPLA.

Statute of limitations. Hi-Tech argued the fighter could not bring products liability claims under the TPLA because he did not file his complaint within the one-year statute of limitations. Georgia has a two-year statute of limitations for products liability claims, and the fighter responded it would “contravene the public policy of Georgia” to apply Tennessee’s shorter period. Following Georgia choice of law rules, the court applied a two-year statute of limitations because “statutes-of-limitations are ordinarily considered procedural.” The court noted that statutes of limitations may be considered substantive where the foreign state’s law “creates a cause of action that is not recognized in the common law and includes a specific limitation period.” The court found that exception was inapplicable here because the TPLA only codified causes of action recognized in Tennessee at common law.

Because it found choice-of-law rules required it to apply the longer statute of limitations period, the court did not address the fighter’s claim that Hi-Tech’s allegedly fraudulent behavior “tolls the statute of limitations.”

Economic damages. The fighter sought damages for lost revenue and income based on the six-month fighting suspension and missed marketing opportunities. However, the TPLA does not consider recovery for economic losses and limits products liability injuries to “personal injury, death or property damage.”

The court denied Hi-Tech’s motion to dismiss for all other relief requested in the complaint.

Amount of damages. Hi-Tech contended the fighter’s complaint must be dismissed because it did not specify the amount of damages. The TPLA requires “any complaint filed in a products liability action…[to] state an amount of such suit sought to be recovered from any defendant.” The fighter admitted he did not specify the damages he sought, but argued an exact figure was not required at the pleading stage and the complaint contained enough to put Hi-Tech “on notice.” The court agreed with Hi-Tech that the TPLA required the fighter to specify damages, and gave the fighter 14 days to amend this complaint to state an exact amount.

Product misuse. Hi-Tech alleged it was not liable because the fighter misused the dietary supplements. Under the TPLA, a manufacturer can avoid liability if its product “is made unreasonably dangerous by subsequent unforeseeable alteration, change, improper maintenance, or abnormal use.” Here, the fighter used the supplements ahead of his match, despite USADA warnings against products that are supposedly “steroid-free [but] claim to boost testosterone and strength.” The court rejected Hi-Tech’s theory, finding that taking the supplements before a fight was “an entirely normal and envisioned use.” The fighter did not alter the supplements and, if steroids were the supposed defect, that defect was present when Hi-Tech manufactured the product.

Risk of future injury. The fighter claimed he was at risk of future injury because of the “toxic substances” he ingested in the supplement and listed health and psychiatric disorders associated with “doping.” Hi-Tech countered that this risk was entirely speculative, as the fighter offered no evidence of any actual bodily injury resulting from the supplements. The court agreed, dismissing the fighter’s risk of future injury as “mere possibility, not plausibility.”

Offensive conduct. The fighter accused Hi-Tech of civil battery and “negligent touching” under Georgia law. However, Georgia’s choice-of-law rules directed the court to apply Tennessee tort law. The court found no record of a tort of “negligent touching,” and only analyzed the fighter’s civil battery claim. Civil battery under Tennessee law is “an intentional act that causes an unpermitted, harmful or offensive bodily contact…[and] infringes on a reasonable sense of personal dignity ordinarily respected in a civilized society.” The fighter did not identify any bodily conduct by Hi-Tech that a reasonable person in a civilized society would consider offensive.

Breach of express warranty. The fighter stated Hi-Tech breached express warranties in claiming (1) its products were “world-class” and “set a higher standard of scientific excellence” and (2) it ran a “certified, approved, good facility.” The court determined these statements were “classic examples” of puffery. Puffery is “loose general statements and exaggerations that a company may use to sell its product.” These statements were nonactionable as they were understood not to be representations of fact.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-3342-TWT.

Judge: Thrash, T.

Attorneys: John M. Phillips (Phillips Hunt & Walker) for Ovince Saint Preux. Arthur W. Leach (The Law Office of Arthur W. Leach) for Jared Wheat, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Hi-Tech Neutraceuticals, Inc.

Companies: Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Hi-Tech Neutraceuticals, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions DefensesLiabilityNews DrugsNews SofLReposeNews DamagesNews GeorgiaNews