Health Law Daily Wrap Up, DIETARY SUPLEMENTS—E.D. Cal.: False advertising suit over supplement dosage labels can proceed, (Apr 7, 2025)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

Court trims some claims in suit over supplement labels but finds that a reasonable person may be misled.

A federal district court in California declined to dismiss consumer deception claims alleging that supplement maker Quten Research Institute, LLC’s Qunol supplements are falsely advertised in that they contain only a fraction of the dosage amounts stated on the front labels. The court found that the consumer sufficiently pleaded that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the front label of Qunol Extra Strength Tumeric 1000mg supplement in its determination that claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and claims alleging negligent misrepresentation can proceed. The court dismissed claims alleging that the supplement maker breached an express or implied warranty (Swetala v. Quten Research Institute, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620-JLT-BAM (E. D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2025)).

Background. Quten Research Institute, LLC makes, distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of dietary supplements under the brand name Qunol. In January 2023, a consumer purchased Qunol Extra Strength Tumeric 1000mg supplement which is made by Quten. The consumer alleged that he relied on the front label when making his purchase, which led him to believe that each capsule of the product contained the advertised dosage of 1,000mg of turmeric per capsule. He further alleged that he reasonably believed that each capsule contained the full 1,000mg dosage but later recognized that “more than one capsule would need to be consumed to receive the advertised dosage of turmeric” and that if he had known that one capsule did not contain the full dosage, he would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less for the item. Based on these alleged misrepresentations, the consumer sought to represent a class of all individuals who purchased one of eleven substantially similarly deceptive Qunol products in California for recovery of damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Consumer deception claims. The court began its analysis by noting that for claims arising under California’s CLRA, UCL, and FAL, the plaintiff must show that reasonable consumers are likely to be deceived by the label. The supplement maker argued the claims should be dismissed because, “no reasonable consumer would be deceived because the front labels do not provide any information at all about the number of doses or servings in the container, much less promise that the number of capsules, gummies, or chews will always equal the number of servings per container.” However, the court stressed, “Whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by a product label is generally a question of fact not amenable to determination on a motion to dismiss.”

In the Ninth Circuit, a court “must begin its analysis with the front label, as reasonable consumers are not expected to look beyond unambiguous misleading representations on the front label to determine the truth from the rest of the packaging, especially the ingredients list. Thus, “if a product’s front label is plausibly misleading to reasonable consumers, then the court does not consider the back label at the pleadings stage.” However, the front label must “convey[] a concrete and unambiguous meaning to a reasonable consumer” to foreclose consideration of the back label. Here, the front label for Extra Strength Turmeric 1000mg supplement purchased by the consumer, makes various representations: (1) “#1 Doctor Recommended form of turmeric curcumin”; (2) “Extra Strength Turmeric Curcumin Complex”; (3) “Ultra High Absorption”; (4) “1000mg”; (5) “Hydro Soluble Technology”; (6) “120 Vegetarian Capsules” and (7) “Dietary Supplement.” Under on Ninth Circuit precedent, “when the front label displays a dosage without specifying if the dosage is per unit or per serving, the front label is unambiguous such that a plaintiff need not turn to the back label for further information,” Walters v. Vitamin Shoppe Indus., Inc. As in Walters, the court found that the representations on the front label of Quten’s products include a specific dosage representation without any indication as to whether the dosage is per capsule or per serving. The court found that this label was nearly identical to the label in Walters, “the front label here indicated a “1000mg” dosage and that the package included “120 vegetarian capsules,” with no additional qualifications or information on the number of servings.” The court concluded that the consumer sufficiently pleaded that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the front label and denied the supplement maker’s motion to dismiss the consumer protection claims.

Breach of warranty claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the breach of express and implied warranty claims. While the court found that the dosage representations on the front label could mislead a reasonable consumer, the court agreed that the representation does not rise to the level of an express “affirmation of fact or promise” that the dosage amount is per unit. Because the express and implied warranty claims are predicated on the same “affirmation of fact or promise,” the implied warranty claim likewise fails.

Misrepresentation claims. The court next reviewed the consumer’s common law fraud claims of intentional and negligent misrepresentation. The supplement maker argued that the consumer’s intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims fail for three reasons: “(1) because there is no misrepresentation, (2) because Plaintiff fails to plead knowledge of falsity, and (3) because Plaintiff fails to establish intent to defraud.” The court indicated that it had already held that the consumer has sufficiently pleaded a misrepresentation under the reasonable consumer standard, so it focused on the other elements of intentional and negligent misrepresentation.

The supplement maker also argued that the consumer made “mere conclusory allegations without specifying” who “had an intent to defraud, when, or what that intent supposedly was.” However, the court found the complaint adequately alleges intent to defraud. The consumer pleaded that each capsule “contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage” and that “Defendant knew that consumers would pay more for a product if they believed they were receiving a higher dosage than that of competitors’ lawfully labeled products.” The court denied the supplement company’s motion regarding the intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Unjust enrichment claim. The supplement maker argued that the consumer’s quasi-contract/unjust enrichment claim should also be dismissed, because the consumer did not establish that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. The court agreed, finding that the complaint does not allege that the consumer lacks an adequate legal remedy.

Injunctive relief. The court also found that the consumer had standing to pursue injunctive relief.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-00620-JLT-BAM.

Judge: Thusson, J.

Attorneys: Alexis Marie Wood (The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron) for Anthony Swetala. Keara M. Gordon (DLA Piper) for Quten Research Institute, LLC.

Companies: Quten Research Institute, LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions AdvertisingNews SupplementNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews