Nature’s Path protein content class action survives dismissal attempt

Nature’s Path class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: A California federal judge denied Nature’s Path Foods Inc.’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.
• Why: The judge determined that the plaintiff’s claims that Nature’s Path misled consumers about the protein content of its products were plausible.
• Where: The Nature’s Path class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

A federal judge has denied Nature’s Path Foods Inc.’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit claiming the company misled consumers about the protein content of its products.

Plaintiff Ian Miller says Nature’s Path misled consumers by making protein content claims on its products’ packaging that were inaccurate.

Miller argues that the company failed to include the correct amount of protein per serving, expressed as a percentage of daily value, in violation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and California’s Sherman Law.

Nature’s Path argued the claims were preempted by FDA regulations, but U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found that the allegations were plausible and not preempted.

Miller claims he purchased Nature’s Path’s Heritage Flakes, Flax Plus Raisin Bran, Flax Plus Multibran Flakes and Heritage Original Crunch cereals after reading and relying on the products’ front label claims that they contained 5 grams of protein per serving.

The plaintiff argues the statements are misleading because the products do not contain 5 grams of protein that the human body can actually use.

Lawsuit: Nature’s Path failed to include corrected protein amount

Miller’s claims hinge on the difference between protein quantity and protein quality — not all proteins are the same in their ability to meet human nutritional requirements, the lawsuit argues.

Nature’s Path makes protein content claims on its products’ packaging, such as stating that its Heritage Flakes cereal has “5 grams of protein per serving” on the front of the box, the Nature’s Path cereal class action lawsuit says.

Miller claims the company’s failure to include the corrected amount of protein per serving, expressed as a percentage of daily value, is misleading because most consumers are unaware of the nutritional value of various protein sources.

The plaintiff argues he would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them if the corrected protein amount had been included on the products’ labels.

In 2019, Nature’s Path faced a class action lawsuit accusing it of misleading consumers about the amount of acai berry in its toaster pastries.

What do you think of the allegations made against Nature’s Path in this class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Marie Ann McCrary, Kali Backer, Seth Adam Safier, Rajiv V. Thairani, Matthew Thomas McCrary and Hayley A. Reynolds of Gutride Safier LLP.

The Nature’s Path class action lawsuit is Miller v. Nature’s Path Foods Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-05711-JST, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• GM recalls 90k Cadillacs and Chevrolets due to possible faulty transmissions
• Recent Apple class actions spotlight safety issues with smartwatches, Siri, and Arcade
• Class action claims Girl Scout cookies contain heavy metals, pesticides
• Lowe’s class action alleges false discount advertising scheme