Context:

• • Many consumers specifically seek out high-protein shakes and foods to support weight loss, muscle gain, and other health goals.
  • Plant-based protein products are especially popular due to increasing demand for vegan options and sustainability concerns.
  • Consumers rely on product labels to make informed choices and often pay a premium for supplements with higher protein content.
  • Federal regulations aim to ensure food labeling is truthful and not misleading so people can trust nutrient claims and compare products.
  • Even small discrepancies in actual vs. advertised protein amounts can have major impacts when multiplied by thousands of purchases.

In Plain English:

• • Owyn is being sued for allegedly misrepresenting about how much protein is really in their shakes and other products.
  • The company claims there’s 20 grams of protein per serving, but tests show there’s actually only about 17.5 grams.
  • This violates food labeling laws that say nutrient claims on packaging have to be accurate.
  • The lawsuit says Owyn exploited high consumer demand for protein by knowingly using false labels to drive more sales.
  • Basically, Owyn is accused of misleading people off by making them think they were getting more protein than they really were.

Key Takeaways:

• • Owyn is accused of significantly overstating the protein content of its products, with labels claiming 20g per serving but tests showing only ~17.5g.
  • This violates federal food labeling regulations requiring accuracy in nutrient content claims on packaging.
  • The core allegation is that Owyn knowingly misled consumers who sought out high-protein products for health/fitness purposes.
  • Even small discrepancies in protein content can have big impacts across many purchases in a market with high demand for protein supplements.
  • The case highlights the importance of honest labeling so consumers can make informed choices and trust nutrient claims.

Notable Requirements:

• • Manufacturers must declare the amount of protein, in grams per serving, in the Nutrition Facts panel on packaging.
  • Any mention of protein content outside the Nutrition Facts (e.g. “20g protein”) is a “nutrient content claim” subject to rules.
  • For foods making protein claims, labels must state % Daily Value (DV) for protein, calculated using the PDCAAS method.
  • PDCAAS factors in protein quality/digestibility, so protein claims can’t be based on just total grams if the source is lower quality.
  • Labeling can’t be false OR misleading – so even literally true statements can be illegal if they tend to deceive consumers.

Explaining the Jargon:

• • FDCA: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the main law governing food labeling and safety.
  • 21 CFR: Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the part that contains all the detailed food labeling rules.
  • Nutrient content claim: Any labeling statement that characterizes the amount of a nutrient like protein in a food.
  • PDCAAS: The Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, a required method of evaluating protein quality for labeling.
  • Misbranding: False or misleading labeling; illegal even if the statement is technically true but still tends to deceive consumers.

The Law in Real Life:

• • Labels saying “20g protein” make consumers think they’re getting that full amount of usable, quality protein per serving.
  • But the law requires more than just total protein content – it has to account for digestibility using a specific testing method.
  • So if a shake label says 20g but tests show only 17.5g of actual quality protein, that’s considered false and misleading.
  • The law recognizes people rely on nutrient content claims to make purchasing decisions, so it requires claims to be fully truthful.
  • This case is all about holding companies accountable for the accuracy of their labels so consumers get what they pay for.

Why It Matters:

• • The test results showing the true protein content of Owyn shakes is the most critical evidence – it directly refutes their “20g” labels.
  • Photos of the actual product labels clearly show how Owyn showcases the alleged 20g protein as a major selling point.
  • The website and marketing materials demonstrate how heavily Owyn focuses on protein content to drive sales and set itself apart.

From the Plaintiff’s View:

• • We have hard scientific proof that what Owyn says is in its shakes isn’t accurate – the tests don’t lie.
  • Look at those labels plastered with “20G PROTEIN” – that’s what people see and believe when deciding to buy.
  • Owyn built its whole brand around protein content, hammering that “20g” in every ad, post and product description.
  • Real customers feel lied to and let down after counting on those 20g to meet their health goals, only to learn it’s not true.

From the Defense’s View:

• • The plaintiffs’ tests only show a small difference in protein content, which could be due to testing variables or product batch variations.
  • Owyn never promised exactly 20g in every single package – that’s an average and approximation across all products.
  • Highlighting protein is common in this market; Owyn shouldn’t be singled out for standard industry advertising practices.
  • Without evidence of a significant number of customers feeling misled, plaintiffs can’t prove any real deception or unfair conduct toward consumers at large.

Elements Explained:

• • UCL “unlawful” prong: Owyn’s alleged labeling violations break federal law, making them automatically unlawful under UCL too.
  • UCL “fraudulent”/”unfair” tests: Labels/ads likely to deceive reasonable consumers and harm greatly outweighs any benefits.
  • FAL: Owyn’s 20g protein claims are untrue and misleading statements likely to deceive consumers into purchasing.
  • CLRA: Lists specific illegal acts, like misrepresenting characteristics and advertising goods with intent not to sell as advertised.
  • Express warranty: Labeling “20g protein” was a promise that became part of the basis of the bargain, but Owyn couldn’t honor.
  • Implied warranty: Shakes weren’t of expected quality or fit for their ordinary protein supplement purpose due to lower content.

Simplifying the Legal-ese:

• • UCL: A broad CA law banning any unfair, fraudulent or illegal practices that harm consumers and competition.
  • FAL: Makes it illegal to advertise falsely or in a way likely to mislead people into buying something.
  • CLRA: Itemized list of specific shady business tactics like bait-and-switch and misrepresenting the quality of goods.
  • Express warranty: When a seller breaches a specific promise or fact they state about what a product is or does.
  • Implied warranty: An assumption that goods will be of proper quality and suitable for their typical purposes.

Why These Claims?

• • CA has strong consumer protection laws, so Owyn’s alleged mislabeling hits multiple legal tripwires.
  • The UCL, FAL, and CLRA are broad, flexible tools to attack a range of unfair and deceptive business practices.
  • Warranty claims focus on how Owyn broke its promise and sold a lesser product than what consumers bargained for.
  • Stacking all these laws creates more avenues to establish liability, hold Owyn accountable, and maximize potential remedies.
  • But those same broad consumer laws also mean Owyn has more defenses to raise in challenging the theories.

Measuring Damages:

• • Price premium: The complaint may argue that consumers paid more for Owyn’s shakes believing they contained 20g of protein, so damages are the difference between the price paid and the true value of the shakes with ~17.5g protein.
  • Unjust enrichment: Plaintiffs could seek to recover all profits Owyn earned from the allegedly falsely labeled products, since that money was wrongfully obtained through misrepresentations and should be disgorged.
  • Statutory or per-violation amount: Some consumer laws set a specific minimum damages amount per incident, like $1000 in the CLRA, to make lawsuits financially viable.
  • Punitive damages as a multiplier: Punitive damages could be calculated as a multiple (often 1-9x) of the compensatory damages, based on reprehensibility of the misconduct.

The Plaintiff’s “Ask”:

• • Pay us back the extra money we shelled out thinking your shakes had way more protein than they really do!
  • Disgorge all those profits you shouldn’t have earned by tricking people into buying shakes with false labels.
  • The court needs to make Owyn stop these practices for good and fix your labels and ads to tell the truth.
  • Slap Owyn with punitive damages to make an example out of them for intentionally misleading consumers.
  • Make them pay all our lawyers for the time and expenses of bringing this case and fighting for consumer rights!

Why It Matters:

• • The remedies demanded show what’s really at stake – refunds and profits that could soar into the millions across all consumers.
  • Injunctive relief is key because it could force costly changes to Owyn’s labeling, marketing and business practices going forward.
  • Punitive damages and fee awards amp up the pressure by raising the specter of bet-the-company liability for Owyn.
  • If successful, the case could set a precedent that changes how the whole protein supplement industry labels and advertises its products.
  • So while the dollar difference in protein content may seem small, the aggregate financial and legal impacts are potentially massive.

Owyn’s Playbook:

• • Undermine the testing: Use expert testimony to challenge the other side’s protein testing methodologies as flawed or scientifically invalid.
  • Nit-pick the numbers: Claim the protein content essentially matches the 20g label since the law allows for reasonable variances.
  • No harm, no foul: Argue consumers still got a high-protein shake as advertised and were unharmed by any minor discrepancy.
  • Combat class status: Try to avoid class certification by arguing purchasers are too diverse and claiming individual issues override common ones.

Reading Between the Lines:

• • Owyn wants to frame any protein difference as an innocent, immaterial technicality blown way out of proportion.
  • It will attack the plaintiffs’ evidence as unreliable and try to explain away discrepancies as testing quirks or acceptable margins of error.
  • Expect Owyn to paint the class reps as nitpicking opportunists trying to cash in on frivolous claims with no real victims.
  • It may also go after the lawyers as greedy exploiters ginning up a big-money lawsuit where no actual consumer harm occurred.
  • Owyn’s best shot is defeating class cert. – without a certified class, the economic pressure on plaintiffs mounts exponentially.

The Endgame:

• • Owyn’s goal is to negate the factual premise and legal merit of plaintiffs’ claims while making the case uneconomical to pursue.
  • Attacking the protein evidence aims to show no actual mislabeling occurred or purchasers got shakes with the expected qualities.
  • Undermining plaintiffs’ motives paints the case as lawyer-driven and frames the conduct as minor technical issues, not active deception.
  • Without a certified class, plaintiffs lose leverage, so Owyn may focus its firepower on defeating predominance of common issues.
  • Dragging out a consumer class action is a war of attrition – deep-pocketed defendants often win by outspending and outlasting.

Questions: Allegations & Evidence

• • 1. What is the core accusation against Owyn in this lawsuit?
    • A) Owyn’s shakes contain no real protein at all
    • B) Owyn falsely claimed its products were vegan and plant-based
    • C) Owyn overstated the grams of protein in its products
    • D) Owyn products made people sick
  • 2. How did plaintiffs’ attorneys attempt to substantiate their claims about protein content?
    • A) They relied only on consumer complaints
    • B) They conducted their own independent lab testing
    • C) They took Owyn’s CEO’s deposition testimony
    • D) They audited Owyn’s internal records
  • 3. What do plaintiffs allege is Owyn’s motive for overstating protein content?
    • A) To save money on ingredients
    • B) To undermine competitors
    • C) To capitalize on consumer demand for protein
    • D) There was no alleged motive
  • 4. What key evidence cited in the complaint is NOT discussed in the article?
    • A) Expert witness declarations
    • B) Consumer complaints posted online
    • C) Screenshots of product labels and website claims
    • D) Protein testing results

Answers: Allegations & Evidence

• • 1. C) The main allegation is that Owyn overstated the grams of protein per serving in its shakes and other products.
  • 2. B) Plaintiffs’ counsel bolstered their case by conducting independent lab testing showing the actual protein content was lower than labeled.
  • 3. C) The complaint asserts Owyn has a profit motive to overstate protein content to exploit strong consumer demand for high-protein products.
  • 4. A) and B) The article discusses testing, labels, websites as evidence but does not mention expert declarations or consumer complaints from the complaint.

Questions: Laws & Liability

• • 1. Which of the following is NOT one of the California consumer protection laws plaintiffs sued under?
    • A) Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
    • B) False Advertising Law (FAL)
    • C) Legal Remedies Act (LRA)
    • D) Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
  • 2. What does it mean for a practice to be “unfair” under the UCL?
    • A) It causes injury that outweighs any countervailing benefits
    • B) It’s unethical or immoral
    • C) It violates public policy or is oppressive or unscrupulous
    • D) All of the above
  • 3. What is the legal basis for plaintiffs’ express warranty claim?
    • A) Owyn made a specific promise about protein content that became part of the basis of the bargain
    • B) Owyn’s shakes were not fit for their ordinary purpose
    • C) Owyn’s website statements created an implied promise
    • D) Owyn’s products lacked adequate warnings
  • 4. Under the FAL, when is a business practice considered “fraudulent”?
    • A) When it’s likely to deceive a significant portion of the public
    • B) When the company intends to mislead consumers
    • C) When it causes any customer to lose money
    • D) When it gives the company an unfair advantage over competitors

Answers: Laws & Liability

• • 1. C) There is no “Legal Remedies Act” – the other three (UCL, FAL, CLRA) are the California consumer protection statutes at issue.
  • 2. D) All of those definitions and tests for “unfairness” have been used under the UCL’s notoriously broad and flexible standard.
  • 3. A) An express warranty is a specific promise or statement of fact about a product’s characteristics that becomes part of the basis of the bargain.
  • 4. A) A “fraudulent” practice under the FAL is one likely to deceive a significant portion of the public – intent and individualized reliance are not required.

Questions: Defenses & Outcomes

• • 1. What is Owyn’s best legal defense to the protein content claims?
    • A) Arguing federal law preempts (blocks) the state-law consumer claims
    • B) Showing the nutrient claims comply with FDA regulations
    • C) Proving the amount of protein stated on labels is accurate
    • D) Asserting protein content claims are non-actionable puffery
  • 2. How might Owyn challenge the class action status of the lawsuit?
    • A) Argue that variations in labeling or testing make classwide issues too individualized
    • B) Contend that California plaintiffs can’t represent out-of-state consumers
    • C) Assert that class actions are inappropriate for false labeling cases
    • D) Claim it would be too hard to identify or notify class members
  • 3. What is the most likely outcome of this lawsuit?
    • A) Complete dismissal with Owyn paying nothing
    • B) Settlement with labeling changes and payments to class members
    • C) Classwide trial resulting in a defense verdict
    • D) Individual trialsand judgments for each class representative
  • 4. If plaintiffs win, what’s the most important remedy they could obtain?
    • A) A small refund for each class member
    • B) A court order stopping the challenged practices and mandating labeling changes
    • C) A public apology from Owyn
    • D) Shutting down Owyn’s business completely

Answers: Defenses & Outcomes

• • 1. C) Owyn’s strongest merits defense is proving its labels were truthful all along and its products really do contain 20g of protein as claimed.
  • 2. A) Owyn’s best shot at opposing class cert. is arguing that variations in product testing, labeling or consumer behavior make common issues too individualized for class treatment.
  • 3. B) Like most class actions, this case will likely end in a settlement, with some payment to class members and an agreement for Owyn to change its labeling practices.
  • 4. B) Injunctive relief forcing Owyn to fix its labels and stop the challenged practices would be the most impactful remedy, reforming conduct beyond just paying damages.