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.
The consumers in a Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit were able to convince a federal judge to partially certify their proposed Class.
A group of plaintiffs from several states alleged in their Muscle Milk class action lawsuit that Cytosport, the maker of the beverage, violated California, Michigan, and Florida state law.
According to the plaintiffs, various Muscle Milk products were deceptively advertised as “lean” and containing protein levels they do not actually contain.
Instead, alleged the Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit, the products contain fats, oils, and unnecessary fillers.
The plaintiffs in the Muscle Milk class action lawsuit were able to convince a federal judge to partially certify their proposed Class.
U.S. District Court Judge M. James Lorenz agreed to certify a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased Muscle Milk, as well as California, Michigan, and Florida subclasses.
Cytosport did manage to escape certain Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit claims made under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, however, because those claims were dismissed earlier.
“To the extent plaintiffs may have intended to certify these claims, the issue is moot as to the Florida and Michigan claims, which were dismissed at summary judgment,” noted the judge in his order. “As to the California claim, plaintiffs do not meet their burden.”
Similarly, Judge Lorenz declined to certify Class Members based on Muscle Milk class action lawsuit claims that Cytosport misleadingly referred to an amino acid called L-Glutamine. The Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit alleged that the amino acid is not actually found in the products, despite labeling that indicates it does.
Judge Lorenz did certify Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit allegations regarding the protein content and “lean” attributes claimed on Muscle Milk labels. The Class period for those claims will begin four years prior to the filing of the Muscle Milk class action.
“The fact that some products were purchased in one state rather than another should be immaterial to the choice of law under the facts of the present case, because the alleged misconduct occurred entirely in California,” noted the judge in the order certifying the Class in the Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit. “Defendant points to no state with a greater interest in enforcing its laws under the facts of this case.”
The Muscle Milk false advertising class action lawsuit seeks to represent consumers who purchased various Cytosport Muscle Milk products, including the Lean Muscle Protein Powder, Light: Lean Muscle Protein Powder, and Naturals: Nature’s Ultimate Lean Muscle Protein varieties.
The lead plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk and Trenton R. Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, Nick Suciu III of Barbat Mansour Suciu & Tomina PLLC and Jason J. Thompson of Sommers Schwartz PC.
The Muscle Milk False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Clay, et al. v. Cytosport Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00165, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
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.
38 thoughts onMuscle Milk False Advertising Class Action Granted Partial Cert.
I purchased 5 lean muscle protein shakes
I wish to be added to submit a claim please.
Been using Muscle Milk for years. Please add me as well
I have bought these for my son please add me
Please Add Me
I have drank this for several years. Please add me.
Add me