Betty Lou’s Class Action Disputes Protein Shake Label

Betty Lou’s protein shake powder is at the center of a class action lawsuit by a consumer who claims that the product’s labeling is misleading because the shakes do not contain the amount of protein as advertised.

Plaintiff Mariela Mercado says that in 2019 she purchased Betty Lou’s Whey Chocolate Protein Shake directly from the company’s e-commerce website.

She claims to have been influenced and encouraged to purchase Betty Lou’s protein shake via product placement and promotion from CVS Pharmacy.

Mercado states that the nutrition facts on the label of the product claims that each serving of Betty Lou’s protein shake contains 20g of protein. In addition, the labeling on the back of the product notes that 40 percent of a person’s recommended daily value for protein will be provided with each serving of the product.

However, the plaintiff claims that testing commissioned by her attorneys showed that each serving of Betty Lou’s protein powder was shown to only contain between 16.48 grams and 17.71 grams of protein, with virtually no free amino acids.

Mercado explains that the product provided less actual protein than the amount that was stated on the nutrition label and contained no free amino acids. 

“The product provided none of the benefits of protein that one would expect from a ‘protein supplement,’ because it was made with some substance or substances that failed to provide any significant degree of free amino acids and which consistently provided less than the stated amount of protein per serving,” the Betty Lou’s protein shake class action lawsuit maintains.

The plaintiff states that she purchased the product in reliance on marketing materials from Betty Lou’s, especially on the false and misleading nutritional label.

Mercado says that Betty Lou’s has made substantial profits from consumers, who subsequently received an inadequate and substandard product sold under false pretenses.

In addition, Mercado states that she also purchased Betty Lou’s protein powder in reliance on promotional activities of defendant CVS, especially on product placement in connection with their own brands. 

Mercado claims that the acts and practices of Betty Lou’s would be material to any consumer’s decision about whether to buy the product.

In addition, the plaintiff states that Betty Lou’s intended that the plaintiff would rely on the deceptive conduct and that a reasonable person would have been misled.

“The wrongful acts of Defendant Betty Lou’s—including its efforts to mislead consumers regarding the actual percent of protein provided by the Product—are willful, unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, contrary to public policy and injurious to consumers,” the Betty Lou’s protein shake class action lawsuit goes on to say.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants have violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and various other state unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes. Mercado says that the introduction of misbranded food into interstate commerce is prohibited by the FDCA.

In addition, the acts committed by the defendants are unconscionable and actuated by bad faith, lack of fair dealing, malice, and incorporate a wanton and willful disregard for consumers’ well-being and are motivated only by the desire of financial gain, Mercado explains.

The plaintiff notes that, when Betty Lou’s was notified with the information contained in this class action lawsuit, the company subsequently changed its website to remove any evidence which would have been deleterious to Betty Lou’s.

Mercado claims that she has suffered financial injury from the false, fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading practices of the defendants. She is looking for compensatory and statutory damages to address the alleged wrongful conduct by the defendants.

Common questions of law and fact in this class action lawsuit include: 1) whether the marketing, advertising, and other promotional materials for the products were deceptive; 2) whether Betty Lou’s properly calculated the amount of protein in the product; and 3) whether the defendants violated the various state’s consumer fraud statutes.

There are three prospective Classes in the Betty Lou’s protein shake class action lawsuit.

First, a national Class including: “All persons in the United States that purchased the product.” Second, a consumer fraud multi-state Class including: “All persons in states with Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes and/or Consumer Protection Acts substantially similar to that of the District of Columbia.” Third and finally, a District of Columbia subclass: “All persons in the District of Columbia that purchased the Product, and all persons who otherwise are entitled to bring an individual action against any Defendant in this district.”

Did you purchase Betty Lou’s protein shake products thinking that they contained a certain amount of protein? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Mohaimina Haque and J. Nelson Happy of The Law Office of Mohaimina Haque PLLC.

The Betty Lou’s Protein Shake Class Action Lawsuit is Mariella Mercado v. Betty Lou’s Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01220, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Overstock.com Class Action Claims Retailer Is Overtaxing

Sex Trafficking Survivor Appointed to U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking

Grand Canyon University Class Action Alleges Accreditation Scam

OxyCide Lawsuit Claims Hospital Disinfectant Is Hazardous to Health