BodyArmor Beats Sugar Claims But Not False Fruit Labeling

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.

Update:

• BodyArmor was granted summary judgment on claims it misled consumers about its sugar content but couldn’t shake claims its labeling fools consumers into thinking its flavor comes from fruit. 
• The judge overseeing the case ruled the plaintiff buyers saw the sugar content of the BodyArmor sports drink before consuming it.
• The judge, however, allowed the buyers’ claims that BodyArmor misled them to believe the product contained fruit juice due to its fruit labeling. 
• The buyers claimed in a January 2020 class action lawsuit that BodyArmor markets its sports drink as healthy despite one bottle containing 36 grams of sugar. 
• The original class action lawsuit was dismissed in June 2020 but was later amended to include the fruit juice labeling claims.

(09/10/2020)

A judge has decided to allow a BodyArmor SuperDrink class action lawsuit regarding the sports drinks labeling to proceed despite the company’s best efforts.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled Sept. 5 that BodyArmor LLC must face the claims made against it by a group of dissatisfied customers after the plaintiffs bulked up their original class action lawsuit and strengthened their case. Judge Illston dismissed the plaintiffs’ first version of the class action in March because it was insufficient.

The lead plaintiffs, Marc Silver, Heather Peffer, Donovan Marshall and Alexander Hill, filed a new, amended version of the class action lawsuit in July claiming the labeling on BodyArmor SuperDrink violates consumer protection laws and U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. BodyArmor fought to have that case dismissed as well, but was unsuccessful.

“The Court concludes that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that defendant’s sports drink labeling is misleading and deceptive to a reasonable consumer,” Judge Illston wrote in her ruling.

At issue in the case, which was first filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in January, is the labeling of BodyArmor sports drinks. The plaintiffs allege that the BodyArmor SuperDrink labeling is designed and intended to mislead consumers into thinking the products are healthy drinks. However, the 16-ounce bottles contain 36 grams of sugar. That amount of sugar is the full daily recommended amount for men and 11 grams more than daily recommended amount for women, according to the class action lawsuit and the American Heart Association.

The amount of sugar in BodyArmor’s sports drinks could lead to diabetes, obesity and heart problems, according to the class action lawsuit, quite the opposite effect a consumer expects from something labeled as a sports drink. The plaintiffs said they purchased the drinks because they believed they would benefit their health.

Judge Illston’s ruling says the plaintiffs’ revised class action lawsuit complaint includes new allegations about the “fruit-based labeling of the sports drinks (such as the naming of drinks in flavors such as ‘Strawberry Banana,’ images of named fruits on the labels, and advertising that the flavors are ‘natural’).”

That labeling, the class action says, led the plaintiffs to believe the BodyArmor sports drinks contained “significant amounts of such fruits,” making the drinks better for them than other drinks on the market.

However, the BodyArmor SuperDrink beverages contain little “if any” of the fruits on the labels, the class action lawsuit argues, which is a violation of U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations.

The new and more extensive allegations laid out in the class action lawsuit were enough to survive BodyArmor’s attempts to have the case dismissed again, the judge said.

“[The plaintiffs] both amplified those allegations and added new allegations about the fruit-based labeling that, when viewed holistically, plausibly state a claim that a reasonable consumer was misled into believing that the drinks ‘benefitted their health and well-being,’” Judge Illston wrote in her ruling denying the motion for dismissal.

BodyArmor had tried to insist that sports drinks are “not commonly expected to contain fruit juice,” the judge’s ruling said, and therefore it could not be guilty of mislabeling. BodyArmor also tried to argue that its labeling and marketing of the sports drinks as healthier options than others on the market is protected by the First Amendment.

Lawyers for the company said when it uses terms like “superior hydration” to describe what its sports drinks can offer consumers it is engaging in wordplay.

The judge said she was “not persuaded by defendant’s arguments based on the First Amendment” and said neither argument was sufficient to toss the class action lawsuit out. Both points should be decided in the course of litigating the case, she said.

The lead plaintiffs are from California, New York and Pennsylvania and they are proposing to represent separate Classes in each of those states.

Have you had BodyArmor SuperDrink sports drinks? Did you buy them because you thought they would be a healthy alternative? Do you feel misled by the labeling and advertising? Tell us about it in the comment section below.

Plaintiffs Silver, Peffer, Marshall and Hill and the proposed Class Members are represented by Laurence D. King, Mario M. Choi, Donald R. Hall and Maia C. Kats of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer.

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

Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Fanatics Employees Say Company Violates Mass Layoff Laws
• Red Bank Catholic High School Sued over Decades-Old Sex Abuse
• LG Refrigerator Cooling Defect Class Action Settlement
• Bayer Roundup Settlement Seems to Be Stalled