Author Topic: Daivd Bars - Lawsuit 03-05-26  (Read 30774 times)

Ron

  • Getbigistrator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12608
  • Getbig!
Daivd Bars - Lawsuit 03-05-26
« on: March 10, 2026, 04:30:31 PM »

March 5, 2026

A new class action lawsuit accuses David Protein of misrepresenting the calories and fat content in its protein bars. Lead plaintiff Daniella Lopez filed the class action complaint against Linus Technologies Inc., doing business as David Protein, on Jan. 23 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.

According to the class action lawsuit, the company’s protein bars are misbranded because they contain significantly more calories and fat than advertised. The lawsuit claims that David Protein knowingly misled consumers by labeling its products with incorrect nutritional information, causing them to pay a premium for what they believed were low-calorie, low-fat options.

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/david-protein-class-action-alleges-protein-bars-contain-more-calories-fat-than-advertised/

IroNat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 42233
Re: Daivd Bars - Lawsuit 03-05-26
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2026, 04:32:46 PM »
Stick to.quality.

Eat only Combat Yoga Protein Bars, Coffee, and Powder.

Ron

  • Getbigistrator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12608
  • Getbig!
Re: Daivd Bars - Lawsuit 03-05-26
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2026, 04:39:09 PM »
DANIELLA LOPEZ, DAVID FREIFELD, AND CRYSTAL PATERSON, individually,
and on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,  Plaintiffs,
v.
LINUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A DAVID PROTEIN, Defendant

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their counsel, bring this class action against Defendant Linus Technologies, Inc. d/b/a David Protein (“Defendant”) to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the calories and fat content in its consumer food products. 

2. Consumers are increasingly health conscious and, as a result, many consumers seek foods low in calories and fat content, which provide a variety of known health benefits including but not limited to, weight loss, lower cholesterol and blood pressure, lower blood sugar and muscle mass maintenance, energy, and overall positive health impacts. 

3. Defendant knows consumers are mindful of the number of calories and grams of fat they consume, and thus, calories and fat content is a material driver in the purchase of products  promoting low calories. Thus, Defendant prominently labels its protein bar products—including Chocolate Chip Cookie, Cinnamon Roll, Fudge Brownie, Red Velvet, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk, Blueberry Pie, Pumpkin Spice, Cake Batter flavored bars (hereinafter, the “Product(s)” with the specific number of calories and fat per serving on the Products’ front labels and/or in the Nutrition Fact Panel (“NFP”). Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each Product will
actually provide the amount and percentage daily value of calories and fat per serving stated on the Product package. However, as detailed herein, Defendant misrepresents the calories and fat content on each of the Products.

4. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations require that the caloric content per serving is expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero, on a food product’s NFP.2
5. FDA regulations permit that the caloric content in a food can be calculated using one of six methods of calculating caloric content of foods.3 A “safe-harbor” provision allows the “total number of calories” measured by any of the six methods to be as much as 20% greater than the calorie content listed on a label.4 Among the methods by which a manufacturer may determine caloric content is the Atwater factors.

5 The Atwater factors is widely used to determine caloric content in food by which the food is assigned 4 calories for 1 gram of carb, 9 calories for 1 gram of fat, and 4 calories for 1 gram of protein. Accordingly, food producers, such as Defendant, must  ensure that their products actually contain the number of calories listed on their labels.

Ron

  • Getbigistrator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12608
  • Getbig!
Re: Daivd Bars - Lawsuit 03-05-26
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2026, 10:41:50 AM »


The response from Peter, the CEO

================================


March 12, 2026

Dear customers and trusted partners:

You may have seen recent news coverage about a class action lawsuit involving our nutrition labels. I want to address this directly.

The lawsuit alleging that David Protein bars contain more calories and fat than stated on their nutrition labels is simply wrong. It rests on a flawed and misleading interpretation of how calories are determined for certain ingredients under U.S. food labeling regulations.

The testing referenced in the lawsuit relies on bomb calorimetry, a laboratory method that measures total heat released when food is completely burned, and applies the standard 4-4-9 caloric values for carbohydrates, protein and fat, respectively. While bomb calorimetry is a recognized calorie testing method for many foods, it is widely accepted in the industry that bomb calorimetry is not the right testing method for determining calories in foods containing certain ingredients, such as dietary fiber, certain sweeteners, and, critically for us, fat substitutes like esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG). It is equally well-accepted that the standard 4-4-9 caloric values don’t apply to these ingredients. This is precisely why the FDA rules permit the use of six different calorie calculation methods.

If you burn ingredients like complex carbohydrates, fiber or EPG in a calorimeter, these ingredients would appear to deliver far more calories than the body actually metabolizes.  In reality, these ingredients are not fully bioavailable and therefore do not yield their full caloric content when ingested.  To address this issue, the FDA permits use of specific caloric values for approved ingredients.

FDA has reviewed multiple GRAS notices over more than a decade that have recognized that EPG contributes only 0.7 kcal per gram—compared with 9 kcal per gram for conventional fats.

The fat content in our bars is also accurate and compliant with FDA rules. EPG contributes approximately 0.08 grams of “fat” per gram of EPG.

Our products are labeled correctly and in full compliance with all FDA regulations. The claims in this lawsuit are meritless and reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of basic, well-established scientific principles regarding how calories are determined under U.S. nutrition labeling standards for ingredients like EPG.

David Protein stands firmly behind the accuracy of its labeling and will vigorously defend it. We remain committed to delivering innovative products with a high calorie-from-protein ratio that consumers can trust.


Sincerely,

Peter Rahal,


Chief Executive Officer