One A Day Gummy Vitamin Class Action Lawsuit Revived on Appeal

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 consumer who alleges the packaging on Bayer’s One A Day gummy vitamins is deceptive won a reversal of the dismissal of his class action lawsuit aiming to hold the company accountable.

Lead plaintiff William Brady claimed in the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit filed in 2016 that Bayer misleads consumers by using “nano-type” instructions to inform them that two “One A Day” vitamins each day are actually recommended.

The One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit was dismissed by a district court; however, upon appeal, the plaintiff convinced a panel of judges that a normal consumer would be deceived by the packaging.

The order reversing the dismissal of the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit rejects Bayer’s argument that normal consumers would read the back of the bottle before deciding on a purchase.

“It may well be that many people — including some judges and lawyers — would make such an inquiry,” the order noted. “It may well be that engineers and scientists and the vitamin cognoscenti would make such an inquiry. But we are convinced other consumers — knowing they have very little scientific background — would rely upon the representation of a known brand with 70 years of goodwill and credibility behind it.”

According to the plaintiff in the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit, a normal consumer using common sense would look at the gummy vitamin packaging proclaiming “One A Day” and, taking into account Bayer’s 70-year reputation, would reasonably think that only one gummy per day was recommended.

The appellate court agreed, noting that the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit may have been different if the packaging said, “Every Day Gummies” or even “Gazorninplat Gummies.” However, noted the order, “The front label fairly shouts that one per day will be sufficient.”

Bayer unsuccessfully argued that the same standard that applies to Froot Loops cereal should apply to the One A Day gummy vitamins. The company contended that a common-sense consumer would not believe that Froot Loops cereal contained real, measurable fruit and, thus, the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit should be dismissed.

The appellate court disagreed, however, finding that the exact opposite logic applies in reality.

“Bayer’s One A Day gummies cannot be said, as a simple application of common sense, to indicate that two gummies a day are required,” noted the order reinstating the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit. “Indeed, common sense flows in the other direction: If the label prominently displays the words ‘One A Day’ there is an implication that the daily intake should be one per day.”

According to the One A Day gummy vitamin class action lawsuit, Bayer’s use of the “One A Day” labeling violates California consumer protection and business laws.

Brady is represented by Samantha Smith of The Aegis Law Firm PC.

The One A Day Gummy Vitamin Class Action Lawsuit is Brady v. Bayer Corp., Case No. G053847, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District.