Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss Pearl Magpayo’s Second Amended Complaint concerning “heart health” claims on Spring Valley fish oil supplement labels. The court held that the complaint failed to identify matched scientific evidence showing that omega-3 supplements provide no benefit to heart health or cause atrial fibrillation at the products’ recommended dosage. The claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Holdings
- A plaintiff challenging a dietary supplement's structure/function claim must allege that taking the supplement provides no benefit for the challenged function and cite identified scientific evidence or conclusions matched to that allegation. Plaintiff's studies did not identify evidence showing that omega-3 fish oil provides no benefit to heart health, so the claim was inadequately pleaded.
- Plaintiff did not plausibly allege that use of Walmart's products at the recommended level increased the risk of atrial fibrillation because the cited studies involved high or unspecified doses and did not match the products' recommended use.
- Because plaintiff failed to adequately allege the underlying false-and-misleading structure/function claim, her express- and implied-warranty, negligent- and intentional-misrepresentation, and injunctive-relief claims also failed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged a false-and-misleading structure/function claim by identifying matched scientific evidence showing that taking the products provides no benefit to heart health.
- Whether studies involving high or unspecified doses plausibly showed that use of the products at their recommended dose increased the risk of atrial fibrillation.
- Whether plaintiff's related express-warranty, implied-warranty, negligent-misrepresentation, intentional-misrepresentation, and injunctive-relief claims survived if the underlying structure/function claim failed.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Kroessler v. CVS Health Corp., 977 F.3d 803, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Greenberg v. Target Corp., 985 F.3d 650, 655 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., 913 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Gallagher v. Bayer AG, No. 14-CV-04601-WHO, 2015 WL 4932292, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015)(not central)
- Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 255 F. Supp. 3d 938, 963 (N.D. Cal. 2017)(distinguished)
- Hamzeh v. Pharmavite LLC, Case No. 4:24-CV-00472-HSG, ECF No. 55 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2025)(distinguished)
- Bowler v. Nestlé Health Science U.S., LLC, No. 2:24-cv-06521-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.)(not central)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…