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.
On Wednesday, a class action lawsuit was filed against Bayer Corp. and its affiliates accusing the drug maker of using false claims to market its One A Day multivitamins.
Lead plaintiffs Colleen Gallagher and Ilana Farar filed the Bayer One A Day class action lawsuit in California federal court. In it, they allege that Bayer deceptively marketed its One A Day vitamins by misrepresenting the purported health benefits of each type of vitamin it sells. The plaintiffs allege that they each purchased various Bayer multivitamins based on health claims made on the packaging and advertisements.
“Bayer commands a premium price for its One A Day multivitamins by distinguishing them from regular multivitamins with targeted multivitamins aimed at various segments of the population based on age, gender, and even health concerns,” the One A Day class action lawsuit says. However, “State and federal dietary guidelines and nutrition science experts all agree that (a) nutrient needs should be met primarily by consuming foods, (b) most Americans are not vitamin deficient, and they consume adequate amounts of vitamins and minerals, and (c) for the most part, only those suffering from vitamin or mineral deficiencies (usually due to diet or health issues) benefit from vitamin supplements,” argue the plaintiffs. “These authorities also agree that multivitamin supplements are not effective for preventing or treating diseases.”
“Bayer markets its multivitamins with a variety of claims—including that they support (a) “heart health,” (b) “immunity,” and (c) “physical energy” (collectively, ‘Disease Prevention and Energy Claims’),” the Bayer class action lawsuit alleges. “In its marketing campaign, Bayer deceptively claims that various One A Day multivitamins possess certain characteristics, uses, or benefits that they do not have.”
The plaintiffs argue that because Bayer multivitamins are a “credence good,” or “a good whose qualities consumers are not perfectly able to judge,” “consumers are not able to determine the efficacy of Bayer One A Day products even after purchase and use.” Additionally, Bayer allegedly uses deceptive marketing, including “scare tactics” and also “draws consumer attention away from the fact that very little difference exists between varieties of Bayer One A Day multivitamins.” Further, the One A Day class action lawsuit alleges consumers should not need to have a degree in nutrition science to be able to “look beyond the deceptive representations on Bayer One A Day multivitamins’ labeling and marketing materials to discover the truth about these supplements.” The plaintiffs further allege that Bayer makes false claims about the purported health benefits of their multivitamins, including claims about blood pressure, heart and eye health.
The plaintiffs allege the following Bayer products were deceptively marketed:
- Bayer One A Day Women’s Formula
- One A Day Men’s Health Formula
- Women’s One A Day 50+ Healthy Advantage
- Men’s One A Day 50+ Healthy Advantage
- Men’s One A Day Pro Edge Multivitamin
- Women’s One A Day Pro Edge
- Women’s One A Day Active Metabolism
- Women’s One A Day Menopause Formula
- Women’s One A Day Active Mind & Body
- Women’s One A Day Plus Healthy Skin Support
- One A Day Women’s Petites
- One A Day Teen Advantage for Her
- One A Day Teen Advantage for Him
- One A Day Essential
- One A Day Energy
- One A Day Women’s VitaCraves Gummies
- One A Day Men’s VitaCraves Gummies
- One A Day VitaCraves Gummies Plus Immunity Support
- One A Day VitaCraves Gummies Regular
- One A Day VitaCraves Sour Gummies
The One A Day class action lawsuit alleges Bayer violated State Consumer Protection Laws, was unjustly enriched by their deceptive marketing, and committed false advertising. The proposed classes include consumers nationwide and in California specifically.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, as well as the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The One A Day Vitamin Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Gallagher v. Bayer AG, et al., Case No. 14‐cv‐04601, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
UPDATE: On Nov. 15, 2017, a federal judge granted Class certification in a Bayer One A Day mislabeling class action lawsuit, limiting certification to three state-based Classes.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
3 thoughts onBayer Misrepresents Benefits of One A Day Vitamins, Class Action Says
Add me
Add me
I have noticed this many years ago. There is barely ANY difference between the varieties of vitamins. I am young, but actually buy SENIOR +50 Silver vitamins–they only differ by two ingredients, and one is in the senior and not regular. Senior is missing Nickel, and I’m allergic to nickel also. I’ll take the extra mineral.
I doubt an ingredient the size of a flake of dust will make your heart healthy.
I hope they get some accountability–meaning the marketers that run our capitalist country–and just be more straightforward.
Hey, here’ s some advice…go to college…get a marketing degree…and then have your company get sued for your big mouth.