In an April 29, 2022 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected Defendant BA Sports Nutrition, LLC’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims that the labeling of BodyArmor (a sports drink sold by BA Sports Nutrition) deceptively enticed them to buy BodyArmor by suggesting that it contained real fruit and/or fruit juice, when in fact it only contained natural flavors. BodyArmor sports drinks were named with fruit names (e.g., BodyArmor Orange Mango) and were labeled with pictures of fruits.

In doing so, the Court rejected BA Sports Nutrition’s argument that the labeling claims were nutrient content claims that were preempted by FDA’s regulation at 21 CFR 101.13 because it found no evidence that the claims were express or implied claims regarding nutrient levels.

Interestingly, the Court found that the flavor labeling regulation (21 CFR 101.22) was not relevant to the proceedings because sports drinks are “not commonly expected to contain a characterizing food ingredient.” See 21 CFR 101.22(i)(1)(i).

However, the Court did grant summary judgment in favor of BA Sports Nutrition as to Plaintiffs’ claims that they were induced into purchasing BodyArmor based on labeling claims that falsely stated that BodyArmor offered superior hydration and health benefits. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ claims were belied by their own deposition testimony which indicated that they were aware that: (1) hydration was not an objective measurable attribute, (2) BodyArmor had a high sugar content, and (3) sugar can be unhealthy.

The case serves as a reminder that, in addition to challenging an action on the grounds that a “reasonable consumer” would not be misled by the labeling/advertising in question, Defendants can also challenge that the Plaintiffs in the particular action were misled.