5-Hour Energy Class Action MDL Trimmed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Claims in the multidistrict consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that 5-Hour Energy was falsely advertised were trimmed by a California federal judge last week.

Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits accused the makers of the popular energy drink, Innovation Ventures LLC and Living Essentials LLC of falsely claiming that consumption of 5-Hour Energy will give its consumer five hours of energy without leading to an “energy crash” after use.

The plaintiffs contend that 5-Hour Energy advertisements claim that the drink can provide this lasting energy because of its mix of B-vitamins and amino acids, but in reality, the plaintiffs argue, energy is provided by the over 200 milligrams of caffeine in the drink. The plaintiffs also allege that the small energy drinks wear off quickly. Multiple actions were consolidated into the present multidistrict litigation in California in June 2013, which seeks to establish a nationwide class with subclasses for purchasers of a decaffeinated version of the product; purchasers of four, six or 12 multipacks; and consumers in different states, including New York, California, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, New Mexico, New Jersey, Missouri, Indiana and Florida.

On Thursday, the defendants succeeded in their bid to toss most of the class action lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez dismissed the lead plaintiffs’ claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as various state law claims for breach of express and implied warranties. The defendants argued, and Gutierrez agreed, that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they had read or heard 5-Hour Energy advertisements. Gutierrez also denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction stating “[i]f plaintiffs do not intend to purchase 5-hour Energy in the future, defendants’ alleged misrepresentations cannot do them any injury, and injunctive relief will not provide them with any redress,” in his ruling while also allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint on this claim.

Gutierrez upheld the plaintiffs’ fraud claims, however, pointing out in his ruling “all of the products relevant to this suit bore either the claim ‘5 hours of energy now’ or the claim ‘Hours of energy now’ on their labels. … However, even if that is not the case, it is self-evident that all 5-hour Energy products were labeled with the name 5-hour Energy, and plaintiffs assert that the 5-hour Energy name itself is misleading.” Gutierrez also rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy. Gutierrez indicated the plaintiffs will be able to amend most of their claims in light of the ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by L. Timothy Fisher and Annick M. Persinger of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The consolidated class action lawsuit is In re: 5-Hour Energy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:13-ml-02438, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On Jan. 23, 2017, the makers of 5-Hour Energy asked a federal judge to end a consolidated false advertising class action lawsuit in their favor, without going to trial. The defendants argued that evidence revealed in discovery destroys the plaintiffs’ claims that 5-Hour Energy is not effective.