Class-action lawsuits over nutritional claims on the rise in MAHA era
In the MAHA age, food and beverage companies are facing more complex consumer criticisms of their health and wellness claims.
Some of these consumer counterclaims are increasingly leading to class action lawsuits.
The latest class action of this kind came earlier this year, claiming that protein bar startup David contains more calories and fat than is labeled. The lawsuit cited independent lab tests that found up to 275 calories and 13.5 grams of fat in a David bar, in contrast to the company’s heavily advertised 150 calories and two grams of fat per serving. David has defended its labeling by stating the latest tests misinterpreted the nutrient makeup of EPG, the proprietary fat substitute used in its bars, and that EPG simply passes through the body and is not directly digested as energy.
The David class action comes on the heels of a somewhat similar suit filed against Poppi in 2024. The better-for-you soda brand was hit with a class-action lawsuit in California by customers, who claimed its label falsely promoted the prebiotic fiber dose as a gut health benefit. Last year, Poppi settled the class action for $8.9 million. The company has also since moved away from the gut health positioning on its labels.
There is indeed evidence that class action filings against food and beverage brands’ label claims have increased this decade. These types of suits reportedly hit a 10-year high in 2021 and jumped by more than 58% between 2023 and 2024, per tracking by law firm Perkins Coie.
Why brands’ health claims are facing greater scrutiny
Donnelly McDowell is a partner at Kelley Drye who advises companies on FDA and consumer protection risks.
McDowell told Modern Retail that health and nutrition claims, along with related marketing campaigns, have been an active source of litigation and enforcement for many years. “The politicization of these issues recently has increased attention,” he said. That has also changed the way that lawyers and regulators are approaching and talking about these issues.
“There is also a whole new set of legislators and regulators that are taking a more active role at the state level,” McDowell said. He added that, historically, it would have been unlikely for a red state’s Attorney General to view these issues through a broader UDAP (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices) lens. “But we’re now seeing investigations and enforcement from both red and blue states on top of the longstanding private litigation,” he said.
On the class-action lawsuit side, despite a spike in legal filings, many of these cases end up dismissed or eventually settled.
One prominent example came in 2022, when beverage brand Ensure faced a suit alleging that the “healthy” claims on its shakes were misleading due to the high amount of added sugar. The lawsuit was dismissed by the Second Circuit in 2025, with the court claiming that the defendant’s label clearly disclosed the sugar content in the product.
In 2025, Chobani successfully defended its “Zero Sugar” yogurt line’s claims against a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the product indeed contains sugar. The class action claimed that Chobani’s claims did not clearly disclose the company’s use of the fruit-derived sweetener allulose as a sugar substitute. In the ruling, an Illinois federal judge said the label met current FDA label requirements.
Social media is shaping the conversation around nutrition claims
Thanks to viral conversions on platforms like Reddit, X and TikTok, certain narratives around brand claims can form much more quickly than they could in previous decades.
Tara Naughton, senior vp at Storyful Intelligence, said that Americans are more health-conscious than ever. “And Storyful data and insights show consumers are paying close attention to claims about the brands they consume, and that can create increased virality,” she said. Popular better-for-you brands, like David and Poppi, can often face greater risk. “That’s because their health-conscious customers can feel misled, particularly if the products are a part of their health routines,” Naughton said.
Naughton said brands can monitor the conversations around their claims early to better inform their messaging.
Per Storyful’s tracking, the conversation around David’s macros claims was born all the way back in September 2024, around the time the company launched. These discussions began on niche Reddit threads and on X. That month saw one of the first instances of people questioning the accuracy of David’s caloric breakdown, with one Reddit user claiming the bars are “collagen spiked” and should be marked as 186 cals instead of 150.
By October, multiple communities were independently arriving at the same conclusion, with users literally weighing the bars and doing their own math. That was followed by the class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in January, which was resurfaced earlier this month thanks to press coverage and social media posts.
What food and beverage companies can do
McDowell said it is important that companies feel confident in their claims, both in the actual underlying nutrition calculations and in the related messaging around function claims or health benefits.
“This can be challenging for startup brands that grow quickly and experience exponential growth,” he said. As in, claims that may seem low-risk when a company is starting in a few markets can suddenly become a bigger target for a plaintiff’s lawyers as its distribution and popularity grow.
Bernardo Silva, management consulting food and beverage industry lead at Teneo, said that mitigating litigation risk goes well beyond label and packaging changes.
From a process perspective, Silva said companies need to run a disciplined claims substantiation process with credible evidence for every front-of-pack, digital and trade claim. This is especially important around superfluous labels like “natural” and “healthy,” plus protein and ingredient absence like “zero sugar,” among others. Brands should also tighten recall readiness and traceability to mitigate liability impacts and defend against economic loss claims.
“When it comes to labeling specifically, the front and back labels must tell the same story,” with qualifiers that are clear, proximate and easy to read, he said, adding, “Courts and regulators assess the entire packaging and often penalize front-of-pack ambiguity.”
Additionally, Silva said, brands should consider the upcoming changes to the definition of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) by the FDA and USDA, which are jointly developing a formal, uniform definition expected to be unveiled sometime this year. The pending changes may bring additional challenges to manufacturers, as broad or ambiguous definitions could create new plaintiff theories.
As nutritional benefits like high protein and fiber are prominently displayed on products, McDowell said it’s possible that more consumers and litigators will dispute these claims.
But it will depend on how these lawsuits fare in court. “We continue to see actions challenging both the methodology of calculation — express claims related to nutrient content — as well as implied health, wellness and nutritional benefit claims,” McDowell said.