Legal Grounds and Precedent
The five-count complaint accuses Nestlé of violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California’s False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as committing fraud and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, alongside restitution, attorney fees, and interest.
The case leans on the 2023 federal ruling in Rausch v. Flatout, which found that companies may mislead consumers by failing to disclose the quality-adjusted percent daily value of protein even if their protein numbers are technically accurate.
“This authority reinforces that Nestlé’s omissions about this product are deceptive,” the lawsuit says. “Had consumers known that the drink was mostly sugar and water, providing nearly a quarter of the daily added sugar limit in one serving, they would not have purchased it—or would have paid far less.”
Nestlé Silent as Similar Lawsuits Pile Up
Attorneys for Testori and Nestlé Health Science did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The lawsuit is part of a wave of recent class actions in California federal courts targeting major food companies over allegedly misleading protein claims.
Just last month, the maker of Mush Overnight Oats—a product once featured on Shark Tank—was sued over allegedly overstating its protein content. In August, two consumers filed similar complaints against Rotisystems Inc., a bone-broth company accused of capitalizing on the high-protein trend without proper labeling.
Other major brands, including Dave’s Killer Bread and Flowers Foods, have also been embroiled in ongoing litigation for allegedly failing to disclose required protein information on product labels.
