BodyArmor Class Action Says Sports Drink Is Soda

UPDATE: On Sept. 5, 2020, a judge decided to allow a BodyArmor SuperDrink class action lawsuit regarding the sports drinks labeling to proceed despite the company’s best efforts.

Customers across three states have filed a class action lawsuit saying that BodyArmor SuperDrink is not a health drink as implied by the product’s advertising, but is really more akin to a soda. The customers say the drink is full of sugar and does not provide the advertised hydration benefits.

The BodyArmor class action lawsuit was filed by Marc Silver, Heather Peffer, Donovan Marshall, and Alexander Hill, customers from California, New York, and Pennsylvania. They say that they purchased BodyArmor because they believed it to be beneficial for their health. 

Allegedly, they and many reasonable consumers believed this based on the product’s advertisements that the drink is “More Natural Better” hydration than its competitors. According to the customers, the company claims that the product is good for consumers because it contains essential vitamins and nutrients. 

However, the customers argue that these claims are not true, because the product is not superior or better than other products on the market. Additionally, the consumers claim that most people are not deprived of hydration in the way that the product claims and then allegedly claims to solve.

The BodyArmor false advertising class action lawsuit asserts that sports drink is sweetened with sugar, and the sugar content can harm consumers’ health, as opposed to better it as the product allegedly claims. The customers note that sugar is linked to serious medical conditions including type 2 diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease if it consumed regularly.

The customers argue that had they known that the product was sweetened with sugar, or if they had known that it was not better for their health and hydration than other drinks, they would not have purchased it or paid as much as they did for it.

The BodyArmor class action lawsuit asserts that the drink’s maker, BA Sports Nutrition, falsely advertised BodyArmor as healthy and good for nutrition in order to attract health-conscious consumers.

Allegedly, the company knew that customers, especially those who worried about their health, are willing to pay a premium for healthy foods and products. According to the customers, BA Sports Nutrition took advantage of customer preference for healthy foods, and of their willingness to pay a premium, in order to advance its own profits.

The customers aim to represent a nationwide Class of customers who purchased the drinks, as well as state-wide classes in Pennsylvania, New York, and California, who purchased the beverages. They seek damages on behalf of themselves and all other allegedly similarly affected consumers in these classes.

Do you drink BodyArmor? Do you believe it to be healthy? Tell us about your thoughts in the comments below.

The customers are represented by Laurence D. King, Mario M. Choi and Maia C. Kats of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade II of Reese LLP.

The BodyArmor Sugar Content False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Silver, et al. v. BA Sports Nutrition LLC, Case No. 3:20-00633, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Essex Gas Stations Price Fixing Class Action Settlement

Agnesian HealthCare Ends Lawsuit Over Illegal Kickbacks with $10 Million Whistleblower Settlement

Los Angeles Vehicle Impound Class Action Settlement

Is Aurobindo Valsartan Recalled?