The 2018 False Advertising Lawsuit: Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
In August 2017, a class-action lawsuit, Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corp., was filed in a New York federal court, fundamentally challenging the accuracy of Premier Protein's product labeling. The complaint alleged that the company misleadingly represented that its ready-to-drink protein shakes contained 30 grams of protein, a figure that independent testing reportedly contradicted. According to the plaintiffs, laboratory analysis showed the shakes actually contained between 26.9 and 28.3 grams of protein. The lawsuit also claimed that other Premier Protein products, such as their protein bars, were also affected by similar protein content discrepancies.
Resolution of the Protein Content Dispute
After a period of litigation, the parties reached a class action settlement in September 2018, which was granted final approval in January 2019. As part of the settlement, Premier Nutrition Corporation agreed to pay $9 million to resolve the claims, without admitting any wrongdoing. Class members—consumers who had purchased the shakes during the class period (August 8, 2011, through October 12, 2018)—became eligible to receive cash payments. The settlement terms included a provision for reevaluating manufacturing procedures to ensure future protein content accuracy. Payments were distributed to consumers, with final settlement checks being mailed in early 2019.
The Ongoing 2023 Lead Contamination Lawsuit
A new and distinct legal challenge emerged in June 2023, with a nationwide class-action complaint filed against Premier Nutrition and its parent company, BellRing Brands. The Protein Products Class Lawsuit alleges that Premier Protein shakes and powders contain undisclosed, high levels of lead. The lawsuit claims that the company engaged in fraudulent and false advertising by marketing the products as healthy and nutritious, while allegedly failing to disclose the presence of lead. This litigation is particularly serious due to the health risks associated with lead exposure, though the plaintiffs did not claim personal injury, focusing instead on economic damages.
In conjunction with this lawsuit, a 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue was issued under California's Proposition 65, which requires warnings for products containing chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. As of mid-2024, Premier Nutrition's motion to dismiss the case was still pending, and the company has stated its intent to vigorously defend against the allegations.
Comparison: Protein vs. Lead Allegations
| Aspect | Protein Lawsuit (2018) | Lead Lawsuit (Ongoing) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Allegation | Misrepresentation of protein content on product labels. | Failure to disclose potentially high levels of lead contamination. |
| Case Name | Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition Corp. | Protein Products Class Lawsuit (Plaintiff information varies) |
| Case Type | Class-action lawsuit | Class-action lawsuit, with additional Proposition 65 notice |
| Products Involved | Ready-to-drink shakes and protein bars from the relevant class period. | RTD protein shakes and protein powders. |
| Resolution/Status | Settled for $9 million in 2019. | Ongoing, motion to dismiss pending as of mid-2024. |
Examining Product Claims: A Guide for Consumers
To make informed decisions about the nutritional products you purchase, consider the following steps:
- Read Labels Carefully: Pay close attention to the nutrition facts panel, not just the marketing claims on the front of the packaging. Compare the listed protein content per serving with your nutritional needs.
- Verify Third-Party Certifications: Look for independent certifications on product packaging from reputable organizations like NSF International, which tests products for contaminants and verifies label claims. This goes beyond the manufacturer's own quality control.
- Research the Brand's History: Investigate if the company has faced previous lawsuits or regulatory actions regarding its products. A history of litigation, even if settled, can be a red flag.
- Check for Contaminant Warnings: For products sold in California, check for Proposition 65 warnings. However, remember that companies operating nationally may not put these warnings on products sold elsewhere, even if the contamination levels are the same.
- Use Consumer Watchdog Sites: Websites like TINA.org (Truth in Advertising) frequently report on lawsuits and allegations against companies. These sites can be a valuable source of information. For example, TINA.org covered the original Premier Protein misrepresentation claims.
The Broader Impact on Consumer Trust
The dual nature of the lawsuits against Premier Protein—first over exaggerated protein content and later concerning potential lead contamination—raises significant questions about transparency and quality control. The false advertising case, though resolved, highlighted a breach of consumer trust concerning the product's fundamental nutritional value. The subsequent lead contamination allegations bring up more serious public health concerns and suggest potentially deeper issues with manufacturing oversight. For consumers, these legal battles underscore the necessity of being vigilant and critical of product claims, especially in the unregulated or under-regulated supplement industry.
While Premier Nutrition has not admitted wrongdoing in either case, the settlements and ongoing litigation signal a need for greater scrutiny. Legal actions serve not only to compensate affected consumers but also to encourage companies to improve their manufacturing processes and ensure their advertising is honest and accurate. For health-conscious individuals who rely on protein shakes for their nutritional goals, these lawsuits represent a stark reminder to look beyond brand reputation and carefully evaluate product integrity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Premier Protein Shake lawsuit is not a single event but a series of legal actions, most notably a settled 2018 false advertising case over protein content and an ongoing 2023 lawsuit concerning alleged lead contamination. The 2018 settlement resulted in a $9 million payout to consumers and prompted a review of manufacturing standards. The newer lead-related lawsuit, though still pending, emphasizes the importance of product safety and corporate responsibility. These cases collectively serve as a cautionary tale for consumers to be diligent in verifying product claims and for manufacturers to uphold the highest standards of transparency and quality control.
