Health Law Daily Wrap Up, DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS—S.D. Cal.: Consumers could be reasonably misled by failure to disclose that 300 mg dosage required consumption of two gummies, (Oct 5, 2026)

By Jeffrey H. Brochin, J.D.

Where front label of ashwagandha gummies displayed a dosage without specifying if the dosage was per gummie or per serving, the fine-print ingredients list on the product’s back label did not absolve the Manufacturer of liability for deceptive statements on the front label.

A federal District Court in California has denied in part and granted in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by Target Corporation (Target or Manufacturer) in a lawsuit brought by a Consumer who alleged that Target violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the California False Advertising Law (FAL), and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) when it allegedly mislabeled its bottles of ashwagandha gummies. The court found that the Complaint plausibly alleged that the labeling misled reasonable consumers into believing that each gummy contained the advertised dosage, however, the court granted the motions to dismiss as to the claims of express and implied breaches of warranty and the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim based on lack of Article III standing (Williams v. Target Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-02534-H-JAC (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2026)).

Allegedly misleading label. Target makes, distributes, sells, and markets Up&Up Ashwagandha Gummies 300 mg. The packaging for the product states that the dosage is “300 mg” and container contains a “60 Count.” The Consumer contended that the labeling was misleading because each individual gummy only contains half the advertised dosage amount (150 mg), and, therefore, two gummies are needed to achieve the advertised dosage of 300mg of ashwagandha. The Consumer alleged that such advertising was misleading for reasonable consumers, leading them to believe that each gummy contained the advertised dosage.

They filed suit alleging claims for violations of California’s UCL, FAL, CLRA, as well as for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty and implied warranty. Presently before the court were Target’s motions to dismiss.

‘Reasonable consumer’ standard. Claims under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard, under which it must be shown that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the labeling. The standard requires more than a mere possibility that the label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner; rather, the Complaint must plausibly allege that there is a probability “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Put another way, a representation does not become “false and deceptive” merely because it will be unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment of the class of persons to whom the representation is addressed.

Here, the court found that the front label which listed both the dosage of 300 mg and a count of 60 gummies was unambiguous in its failure to disclose that in fact two gummies were required in order to achieve the 300mg dose. Accordingly, the Consumer plausibly alleged that the label might conceivably be misunderstood by the reasonable consumer, and the court therefore declined to dismiss the claims for violations of the UCL, CLRA, and FAL.

Express and implied breach of warranty claims. To prevail in an express breach of warranty claim, the Consumer needed to prove: (1) the statements constituted an affirmation of fact or promise or a description of the goods; (2) the statement was part of the basis of the bargain; and (3) the warranty was breached. Target argued that the Consumer failed to allege that Target made any “specific and unequivocal” warranty that the product contained 300 mg ashwagandha root extract per count, and the court agreed: although the dosage representation on the front label of the product was sufficient to plausibly plead that a reasonable consumer could be misled, the representation did not rise to the level of an express “affirmation of fact or promise” that each gummy/count contained 300 mg of ashwagandha. Accordingly, that claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The implied warranty claim was similarly dismissed because when an implied warranty of merchantability cause of action is based solely on whether the product in dispute conforms to the promises or affirmations of fact on the packaging of the product, the implied warranty of merchantability claim rises and falls with express warranty claims brought for the same product. Since the express warranty claim fell, so did its associated implied warranty claim.

Unjust enrichment claim. Target argued that the claim for unjust enrichment should be dismissed because California law prohibits a party from bringing both an unjust enrichment claim and a breach of express warranty claim. However, because the court had dismissed the claim for breach of express warranty with prejudice, the court rejected Target’s asserted basis for dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.

Standing for injunctive relief. Target argued that the Consumer lacked Article III standing for the unjust enrichment claim due to lack of future injury. The court noted that prospective injunctive relief requires a showing of a threat of future injury that is “actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Here, the Consumer did not sufficiently allege intent to seek or purchase the product again, and indeed, expressly alleged the opposite; that he would not purchase the product again. Therefore, the court found that the Complaint failed to allege any facts plausibly demonstrating “a real and immediate” threat of injury in the future, and they accordingly granted Target’s motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive relief due to lack of Article III standing.

The case isNo. 3:26-cv-02534-H-JAC.

Judges: Huff, M.

Attorneys: Lilach Halperin Klein (Crosner Legal, PC) for Janice Williams and Michael Smith. Cole R. Kroshus (Amin Wasserman Gurnani, LLP) for Target Corp.

Companies: Target Corp.

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions FDCActNews SupplementNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews