GNC Wants L-Arginine Supplement Class Action Lawsuit Tossed

General Nutrition Centers Inc. is seeking to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that its line of dietary supplements containing L-Arginine do not increase muscle size and blood flow as advertised, saying that the label claims are “mere puffery” and therefore can’t be construed as a guaranteed promise.

GNC argues that the claims brought by plaintiff Stephanie Hirmez of La Quinta, California, lack legitimacy. Hirmez’s class action lawsuit against GNC alleges that several of GNC’s L-Arginine supplements contain false claims about their health benefits on the product labels.

However, GNC said in its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, filed Monday, that Hirmez names four different products that all make different claims on their labels, when the plaintiff admits in the lawsuit that she only used one of those products.

Therefore, GNC asserts that Hirmez is not in the position to make claims about products she did not use, especially when the claims on their labels are different from the one she did use.

GNC also says that Hirmez does not offer any facts about the three products that she did not use, and that her claims about those products prove that what is written on those labels is “true and accurate.” In addition, GNC says, the statements made on the labels are “merely non-actionable puffing.”

Non-actionable puffery is a practice in which businesses use hyperbole to describe a product with phrases such as “the best,” “the better choice,” or “the world’s most effective.”

While claims stated by a company about a particular product are expected to be accurate, under consumer law, courts have made a distinction between serious claims and what has been called mere puffery. It is non-actionable, meaning that such claims do not merit a lawsuit.

“Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language,” the U.S. Court of Appeals wrote in Castroil v. Pennzoil. “Such sales talk, or puffing, as it is commonly called, is considered to be offered and understood as an expression of the seller’s opinion only, which is to be discounted as such by the buyer. The puffing rule amounts to a seller’s privilege to lie his head off, so long as he says nothing specific.”

The product that Hirmez used is the Pro Performance RapidDrive Arginine 5000. However, the class action lawsuit also includes L-Arginine 5000, L-Arginine 1000 and L-Arginine 500, all of which have significantly different statements of benefits on their labels, according to GNC.

“While some courts defer the issue of standing with respect to unpurchased products until the class certification stage, they do so only where ‘the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar,'” GNC said. “Here, the unpurchased products and their representations are significantly different from the Pro Performance RapidDrive product.”

The hearing for dismissal is scheduled for November 18, 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Nick Suciu of Oliver Law Group PC and Brian Tomina.

The GNC L-Arginine Supplement Class Action Lawsuit is Stephanie Hirmez v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-01828-BEN (JMA) in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California.

UPDATE: On May 27, 2014, a federal judge dismissed the GNC L-arginine class action lawsuit after finding the plaintiff failed to show that total Class damages exceeded $5 million. The plaintiff will be allowed to file an amended complaint and try again.