Background of the David Protein Bar Lawsuit
The David protein bar lawsuit originated in June 2025, when the protein bar startup faced a legal challenge just days after announcing a significant Series A funding round and its acquisition of Epogee, the exclusive manufacturer of a unique fat replacer called Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol (EPG). EPG is a modified plant-based oil that significantly reduces calories from fat, a key component in David's high-protein, low-calorie products. This ingredient was also foundational to a number of other smaller food companies that were now reliant on a competitor for their key supply.
The plaintiffs, including Own Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods, accused David Protein's parent company, Linus Technology, of orchestrating a “secretive and collusive” scheme to monopolize the supply of EPG. They allege that after encouraging manufacturers to build their products around EPG, Epogee, now under David's control, suddenly halted the supply. This move, they claim, violated both federal antitrust laws and New York's Donnelly Act by eliminating competition and causing significant financial harm to the affected businesses. The small startups argue that they had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in research and development and production infrastructure based on the expectation of continued access to EPG.
The Heart of the Antitrust Claims
At the core of the lawsuit is the claim that David Protein created an illegal monopoly over the global EPG market. The legal term “essential facility doctrine” has been invoked, arguing that EPG is a critical ingredient that cannot be easily replaced. The plaintiffs state that because their entire product formulations were built around EPG's unique properties, the sudden cutoff left them with no viable alternatives and essentially forced them out of business. In court documents, they have cited declarations from multiple terminated EPG customers who failed to find functional substitutes for the ingredient.
This legal battle highlights the complex relationship between intellectual property, proprietary ingredients, and competition in the consumer packaged goods (CPG) industry. While patent law typically allows a company to control its patented products, antitrust law prevents that control from being used to illegally stifle market competition. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how these two areas of law intersect in the food and beverage sector.
David Protein's Defense and Counterarguments
In its defense, David Protein has vigorously denied the allegations of antitrust violations. The company's primary arguments rest on two main points:
- Lack of Direct Competition: David has argued that since many of the plaintiffs do not produce protein bars, there is no monopoly in either the protein bar market or the broader fat substitute market. The company asserts that its market share is small, and EPG is just one of many fat substitutes available.
- Bad Business Planning: David's legal team has repeatedly stated that the plaintiffs “only have themselves to blame” for not securing long-term supply contracts with Epogee. They frame the lawsuit as a consequence of the plaintiffs' own poor business judgment, rather than any illegal conduct by David Protein. The company argues that it is under no obligation to continue selling to firms that have not entered into such agreements.
Furthermore, David's founder, Peter Rahal, has publicly justified the acquisition as a necessary move to secure the supply chain and scale production to meet the demand for David's popular products. The company claims it plans to eventually resume selling EPG to other food companies once production is ramped up, though potentially excluding direct competitors. However, comments attributed to Rahal have indicated a desire to control the market, with plaintiffs pointing to public statements where he allegedly said, “We will be taking all the supply”.
Comparison: David's Acquisition vs. Competitor Strategies
| Feature | David Protein's Strategy | Typical CPG Competitor Strategy | Implication for Plaintiffs |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPG Supply | Acquired Epogee to secure exclusive, short-term supply. | Relied on Epogee as a third-party supplier, often without long-term contracts. | Lost access to a critical ingredient, leading to product disruption. |
| Market Control | Accused of seeking to monopolize the EPG supply market. | Operated within the open market, competing for ingredients and market share. | Vulnerable to a competitor's aggressive moves and supply chain control. |
| Ingredient Exclusivity | Established exclusive control of EPG through acquisition. | Did not have exclusive rights to EPG, relying on a shared market. | Had no contingency plan when the shared resource was suddenly monopolized. |
| Antitrust Risk | Exposed to significant legal risk due to potential antitrust violations. | Lower antitrust risk concerning shared ingredients. | Forced into expensive, high-stakes litigation to survive. |
Consumer Reaction and Further Developments
The lawsuit has sparked significant controversy within the health and wellness community. Many consumers expressed solidarity with the smaller startups, seeing David's actions as a classic “David vs. Goliath” battle, ironic given the brand's name. Social media platforms, especially Reddit, have become hubs for discussion and boycott movements, fueled by further complaints about the quality of David bars themselves, including reports of manufacturing defects. Amidst the legal battle, Consumer Labs also reported concerning findings regarding David bars, alleging significant discrepancies between the stated and actual nutritional content, further fueling public skepticism.
In a surprising twist, David Protein launched a line of frozen cod pouches in July 2025, which many observers interpreted as a potential marketing tactic to deflect attention from the ongoing legal and public relations issues surrounding the EPG controversy. Meanwhile, the lawsuit continues, with plaintiffs filing amended complaints to strengthen their arguments after a judge initially refused to grant a temporary restraining order against David. The legal proceedings and public reaction continue to unfold, raising broader questions about ethics, competition, and innovation in the CPG industry.
Conclusion
The David protein bar lawsuit is a complex legal and business battle centered on allegations of antitrust violations and monopolistic behavior. By acquiring Epogee, the sole manufacturer of the proprietary fat substitute EPG, and then ceasing supply to competitors, David Protein ignited a legal firestorm. While David defends its actions as strategic business moves and criticizes competitors for poor planning, the plaintiffs, backed by additional harmed companies, argue that the move constitutes an illegal power play designed to crush smaller businesses reliant on the unique ingredient. The outcome could significantly impact the food industry's future, influencing how companies manage supply chains and control proprietary ingredients. Regardless of the legal resolution, the controversy highlights the ethical dilemmas faced by fast-growing startups and the vulnerabilities of smaller enterprises relying on single-source suppliers.
Check out the official legal filings for details on the David Protein lawsuit.
