GNC L-Arginine Supplement Class Action Lawsuit Tossed

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.

A California federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit over GNC L-arginine supplements, ruling that GNC Corp. may have violated fair advertising laws through its claims that the supplements build muscle size, but the plaintiff failed to show the potential class lost at least $5 million in damages — the amount necessary for the judge to have jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

According to the GNC L-arginine supplement class action lawsuit, filed in August 2013, plaintiff Stephanie Hirmez had purchased GNC Pro Performance Rapid Drive Arginine 5000 from the company some time in May 2013. Hirmez alleged in the class action lawsuit that GNC made “false, fraudulent, misleading, unfair and deceptive claims” about the effects of the L-arginine on the human body.

The GNC L-arginine class action lawsuit alleged that GNC falsely represented the health benefits of its RapidDrive, L-Arginine 5000, L-Arginine 1000 and L-Arginine 500 supplements. The company, Hirmez said, misrepresented that the products increase blood flow, increase lean muscle mass, increase circulation of oxygen and nutrients and enhance athletic performance. She alleged the company did so in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the state’s False Advertising Law, and committed breach of express warranty.

Arginine is one of the 20 most common amino acids, and is a substance that naturally occurs in the human body. In addition to other functions in the body, such as reducing healing time of damaged tissue and quickening the repair of injuries (particularly bone), it metabolizes into nitric oxide that in turn dilates blood vessels during exercise. While arginine supplements have been used to ease symptoms of a number of health conditions, such as angina and peripheral arterial disease, critics say that healthy individuals have plenty of arginine in their body, and oral supplements cannot affect health in any measurable way.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez, however, pointed out a number of omissions in Hirmez’ class action lawsuit filing in his May 27 motion to dismiss the case. Judge Benitez said she never showed a receipt for her purchase of the L-arginine supplement, nor even stated the exact date or purchase price of the product. Even assuming that the real value of the product is zero, Benitez said, it is impossible to calculate potential consumer losses from GNC’s allegedly deceptive advertising.

The damages must exceed $5 million to activate federal jurisdiction under CAFA, but Hirmez had failed to show her class action lawsuit could meet that threshold. Benitez wrote, “If each person paid $39.99 for the allegedly worthless product, and there were more than one thousand – say, two thousand – class members, the aggregate amount in controversy would be only $79,980. If each person paid $39.99 for a worthless product, and there were nine thousand class members, the aggregate amount in controversy would be only $359,910 – still well below the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000,000. Of course, the actual aggregate amount could be more or less.”

All this theoretical math notwithstanding, wrote Benitez, “[t]he problem is that it is up to the plaintiff (as the party seeking the federal forum) to set forth the underlying facts supporting its assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory minimum.”

The plaintiff was given permission to file an amended complaint within five weeks of the ruling.

The plaintiff is represented by Brian Tomina, Alyson Oliver and Nick Suciu III of Oliver Law Group PC and Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP.

The GNC L-arginine False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Hirmez v. GNC Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01828, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.