Understanding the David Protein Bar Controversy: A Deep Dive

December 8, 2025 •

4 min read

In mid-2025, a $75 million Series A funding round for David Protein was followed by a major antitrust lawsuit, thrusting the David protein bar controversy into the spotlight. The scandal involves corporate strategy, ingredient control, independent lab tests challenging the brand's nutritional claims, and customer reports of product defects.

Quick Summary

A scandal surrounding David protein bars includes an antitrust lawsuit over acquiring its exclusive EPG fat substitute supplier, plus reports from ConsumerLab of misleading nutritional claims.

Key Points

Antitrust Lawsuit: David Protein was sued by competitors for allegedly creating an illegal monopoly by acquiring its sole EPG supplier, Epogee.
Misleading Macros: Independent lab tests by ConsumerLab found significantly higher calories and fat content in David bars than advertised, which is linked to the proprietary EPG ingredient.
Acquisition Strategy: David acquired Epogee after securing $75 million in funding, then cut off EPG supply to other CPG firms, disrupting their businesses.
Consumer Complaints: Customers reported poor product quality, including oily residues and unusual fatty chunks in the bars.
Legal Setback for Plaintiffs: An early court ruling denied a temporary restraining order against David, arguing competitors failed to show EPG lacked viable substitutes.

The David Protein Bar Controversy Explained

The David protein bar, launched by RXBar founder Peter Rahal, quickly gained a reputation for its impressive macronutrient profile: 28g of protein, 150 calories, and 0g sugar. However, the brand's rapid success was soon eclipsed by a series of high-profile issues that led to the full-blown David protein bar controversy, involving a contentious acquisition, an antitrust lawsuit, and claims of misleading product labeling.

The Antitrust Lawsuit and the Epogee Acquisition

At the center of the legal dispute is EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol), a patented, modified plant fat produced exclusively by Epogee, which provides the texture of fat with significantly fewer calories. The core events unfolded in mid-2025:

May 2025: David Protein announced a successful $75 million Series A funding round, confirming its acquisition of Epogee. This gave David complete control over the EPG ingredient supply.
June 2025: Three competing CPG firms—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against David, alleging the company illegally monopolized the market for EPG. The plaintiffs claimed David used its newfound control to cut off their access to the ingredient, halting their product development and causing significant financial harm.

The 'Bait-and-Switch' Allegation

Plaintiffs argued that David and Epogee engaged in a "bait-and-switch" scheme. According to the lawsuit, Epogee encouraged manufacturers to build product lines around EPG, providing assurances of stable supply. However, following the secretive acquisition, Epogee abruptly ceased all sales to its former customers, causing widespread disruption across the food tech industry. Emails notified customers that new orders were no longer being accepted and that existing accounts were being wound down due to the acquisition.

David's Legal Defense

David Protein denied wrongdoing, stating in court filings that it was under no obligation to supply EPG to competitors who had not secured long-term contracts. The company argued that its move was for supply chain stability rather than market manipulation. An early court ruling denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order, a setback that underscored the complexities of antitrust law concerning patented, proprietary ingredients. David also contended that EPG was not essential and that competitors had alternative options, though plaintiffs disputed this, citing failed attempts to find functional substitutes.

The Nutritional Transparency Controversy

Another significant issue fueling the controversy involved questions about the bar's nutritional accuracy, which emerged following independent testing by ConsumerLab.

ConsumerLab's Findings

In August 2025, ConsumerLab reported a major discrepancy in the nutrition facts of David protein bars. For one flavor, testing revealed:

Calories: 229, instead of the 150 stated on the label (152% of the claim).
Fat: 9.7g, instead of the 2g stated (nearly 500% of the claim).
Protein: 23.6g, instead of the 28g stated.

EPG and the Labeling Discrepancy

The root of this disparity lies in the treatment of EPG. While David Protein labels EPG based on its metabolized caloric value (0.7 calories per gram), standard lab tests identify EPG as fat. This causes a massive inflation of the fat content in test results, consequently raising the total calorie count. David responded by claiming the testing methods were flawed and did not align with their calorie calculations for EPG. However, this raises critical questions for consumers about nutritional transparency, especially given EPG is an ultra-processed ingredient.

Product Quality and Consumer Complaints

Beyond the legal battles and lab results, consumer experience added to the negative press. Early in the controversy, Reddit threads surfaced with customer complaints regarding the product's quality.

Oily/Fatty Substance: Some bars were reported to be coated in an oily residue.
Chunky Texture: Customers found chunks of the white, fatty substance (presumably EPG) in the wrappers, which they found unappetizing despite company assurances that it was safe.
Disgusting Taste: Some users, even those with low standards for diet products, described the texture and taste as disgusting.

Comparison of Claims and Findings


Feature	David Protein's Label	ConsumerLab Test Findings	Context/Issue
Calories	150 calories	229 calories	Discrepancy due to EPG's caloric calculation vs. standard testing.
Fat	2 grams	9.7 grams	Massive difference stemming from EPG's classification as fat in lab testing.
Protein	28 grams	23.6 grams	Independent testing found lower protein content than claimed.
EPG Source	Modified plant fat	Acquired and controlled by David	The proprietary ingredient is now a monopoly, impacting competitors.

Ethical and Market Impact

The controversy has sparked broader debates within the health food industry. The acquisition of a core ingredient supplier raises questions about competitive practices and potential market consolidation. Furthermore, the reliance on a highly processed, proprietary fat substitute like EPG, along with artificial sweeteners, clashes with the growing consumer demand for clean-label, whole-food products. For smaller brands that were dependent on EPG, the sudden cut-off of supply forced layoffs, product reformulations, and in some cases, business closure. As the lawsuit continues, the outcome could set a new precedent for how antitrust laws apply to ingredients in the rapidly evolving functional food market.

Conclusion

The David protein bar controversy is a multi-faceted issue that has severely damaged the brand's reputation, despite its impressive initial growth. The antitrust lawsuit over the Epogee acquisition, combined with the consumer distrust created by misleading nutritional labels and product quality issues, has left many consumers and industry observers questioning the brand's practices. While David defends its actions as securing a key component for its supply chain, the ethical implications of allegedly cutting off competitors and the lack of transparency regarding nutritional values have proven to be significant liabilities. The long-term resolution of the legal battles and the brand's ability to restore consumer trust will ultimately determine the future of David Protein. A detailed account of the legal proceedings can be found in the New York Times article, "The Protein Bar Arms Race".

Frequently Asked Questions

EPG, or esterified propoxylated glycerol, is a patented, modified plant fat developed by Epogee. It mimics the texture of fat but contains 92% fewer calories per gram, making it a key component for creating low-calorie, high-protein foods.

Competitors sued David Protein for allegedly violating antitrust laws by creating an illegal monopoly. After acquiring Epogee, David ceased supplying EPG to other brands, causing their product development to be halted and harming their businesses.

ConsumerLab's independent testing found significant discrepancies in David bars' nutritional labeling. Tests showed higher fat and calorie content and lower protein than advertised, with one test revealing 229 calories and 9.7g of fat instead of the claimed 150 calories and 2g of fat.

David Protein attributed the discrepancy to testing methods that incorrectly classify EPG as a standard fat, which has 9 calories per gram. The company claims its method of counting EPG at 0.7 calories per gram is accurate, but this has led to a major dispute over labeling standards.

A federal judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order against David Protein in June 2025. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently proven their antitrust claims or that alternative ingredients for EPG were unavailable.

Some customers complained of poor product quality, reporting an oily or fatty substance coating the bars and solid chunks of white substance in the wrappers. Some found the texture unappetizing, despite David's reassurance that the substance was safe.

Yes, David Protein remains in business and is still actively selling its products. However, the antitrust lawsuit is ongoing, and the company has had to address the backlash from its business practices and nutritional labeling issues.