GNC Supplements Mislabeling Lawsuit Filed

When purchasing any ingestible product, it is reasonable to assume that all of a product’s ingredients will be listed on the label. It’s also reasonable to assume that the product will contain only the substances listed in the ingredients. However, many consumer products are commonly mislabeled and lawsuits are not uncommon.

In April, a California man filed suit against supplement retailer GNC alleging that GNC supplements advertised as helping “joint support” had been improperly labeled. This is far from the first lawsuit of this kind that GNC has faced. As far back as 2015, NPR reports that government officials accused GNC of mislabeling their supplements.

Glucosamine Sulfate vs. Glucosamine Hydrochloride

One of the most common dietary supplements, glucosamine, is often advertised as helping joints and joint pain, the GNC supplements suit states. Glucosamine occurs naturally in the body, but the body produces less of it as you grow older. As a result, many people turn to other sources of glucosamine, such as GNC supplements. These supplements commonly come in two different forms: glucosamine sulfate and glucosamine hydrochloride.

According to the lawsuit, it is widely known that the two types of glucosamine “may not have the same effects when taken as a dietary supplement.” The majority of scientific research has been done on glucosamine sulfate, according to the suit, and it is often seen as the more effective of the two types. Because of this, private companies like GNC commonly promote glucosamine sulfate over its alternative. However, the GNC supplements lawsuit alleges that “some products in the US that are labeled glucosamine sulfate are actually glucosamine hydrochloride with added sulfate.”

GNC Supplements Lawsuit

On April 16, Rigo A. filed a lawsuit against GNC Holdings Inc. alleging that the company had knowingly mislabeled their glucosamine sulfate supplements. According to the plaintiff, he has been purchasing and taking GNC supplements advertised as containing glucosamine sulfate and preserving joint health for four years. The plaintiff claims he purchased the products under the impression that the “product labels accurately represented the contents of the packaged supplements.”

The suit states that the plaintiff’ had the GNC supplements tested in March. The “Report of Analysis” stated that the tested “glucosamine sulfate” supplements actually contained “no trace of glucosamine sulfate,” according to the lawsuit. Instead, the analysis allegedly found that the GNC supplements contained glucosamine hydrochloride and sodium sulfate.

The complaint goes on to state that it isn’t “practicable” for each consumer of GNC supplements to test the truthfulness of the products’ labels. It states that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of GNC’s practice of mislabeling because he was misled into believing he was ingesting one substance when he was actually ingesting another. According to Bloomberg Law, the plaintiff claims that if the product had correctly stated its ingredients as glucosamine hydrochloride, he would not have purchased it.

GNC continues to offer “glucosamine sulfate” supplements on its website. The GNC Glucosamine Sulfate 500 MG supplements are labeled as containing d-glucosamine sulfate, gelatin, cellulose, and magnesium stearate vegetable source. Nowhere on the packaging or webpage is glucosamine hydrochloride mentioned. GNC Glucosamine Sulfate 550 MG, the product allegedly taken by the plaintiff, is not available on the company’s website. There are currently at least nine different glucosamine GNC supplements available for sale on the site.

Rigo A. v. GNC Holdings Inc, case number 2:20-cv-03545, in the United States District Court of the Central District of California.

Join a Free California Supplements Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you live in California and purchased a dietary supplement with a label that touted health claims you believe may be false and misleading within the last four years, you may have a legal claim.

Get a Free Case Evaluation

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.