Health Law Daily Wrap Up, DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS—N.D. Cal.: No evidence dietary supplement packaging misled consumers, (Aug 8, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

Consumers’ claim a dietary supplement misrepresented itself as natural could not pass the reasonable person test necessary to state a claim under California consumer protection law.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted a supplement manufacturer’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by consumers who allege the product’s packaging violated California consumer protection law. The consumers’ second amended complaint alleged the manufacturer violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and breached express warranty and unjust enrichment under California law because it misrepresented the supplements as containing only natural ingredients. The court granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint after conducting hearings that suggested an ordinary consumer would not be deceived by the packaging, which included pictures of fresh fruit and the word “natural.” The court repeated its analysis from the earlier proceeding, concluding the consumer’s failure to satisfy the reasonable person standard doomed all three of causes of action. The court denied consumers leave to amend, as their second amended complaint had not cured any deficiencies the court found in the first amended complaint (Ruiz v. Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, No. 24-cv-06776-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025)).

Background. The case revolves around a dietary supplement that consumers alleged was wrongfully marketed as natural. The supplement comes in seven flavors all named after a fruit and the packaging includes “pictorial representations of fresh fruit” and phrases such as “natural fruit flavors.” Taken together, the consumers asserted, the labelling was meant to give reasonable purchasers the “overall impression the Products [were] composed only of natural flavors.” The consumers accuse this was misleading because the supplements contained malic acid, an artificial ingredient.

The consumers brought this suit in federal court in the Northern District of California based on the supplement manufacturer’s did not include the required disclosures regarding the use of artificial flavors. The consumers raised three causes of action: violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. On June 2, the manufacturer moved to dismiss the consumers’ second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court ruled the consumers’ CLRA claim was subject to dismissal because it could not satisfy a reasonable person test.

A plaintiff can proceed past the pleadings stage on a CLRA claim if he can show a “members of the public are likely to be deceived” by “unfair or deceptive” representations of good or services. The court emphasized this reasonable person test requires “more than a mere possibility” some consumers might be misled. Plaintiffs must demonstrate “it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted customers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, be misled.”

The court was unpersuaded the word “natural,” pictures of fresh fruit, or omission of the label “artificially flavored” were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. The court based its determination on “lengthy hearings” it conducted before granting the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss the consumers’ first amended complaint. These hearings suggested a reasonable consumer would not be deceived by the packaging and the court saw no reason to conduct further surveys.

The court reiterated its ruling from the earlier dismissal that, without a showing a reasonable person would be misled by the packaging, “the absence of an ‘artificially flavored’ disclosure is not, standing alone, sufficient to plausibly plead a claim under the CLRA.” The consumers had been given leave to amend to add factual allegations suggesting reasonable consumers would have expected a “artificially flavored” disclosure, but the court found any there was nothing in the second amended complaint to bolster this claim.

Unjust enrichment & breach of express warranty. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty claims because the consumers could not show the supplement’s packaging misrepresented the product or deceived customers. The consumers’ express warranty claim mirrored their CMLRA claim, alleging the manufacturer misrepresented the products by expressly warranting they contained only natural flavors. The court repeated its analysis for the CMLRA claim, concluding the consumers “failed to plead an actionable representation as to [natural] flavoring.”

Leave to amend. The court denied the consumers leave to amend because the second amended complaint did not cure any of the deficiencies from the first, such that the court decided further leave would only be “futile.”

The case is No. 24-cv-06776-MMC.

Judge: Chesney, M.

Attorneys: Charles Christophe Weller (Charles C. Weller, A.P.C.) for Jimy Ruiz. Franco A. Corrado (Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP) for GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC.

Companies: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC

Cases: CaseDecisions FDCActNews SupplementNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews