A proposed class action lawsuit alleges Golo, LLC has intentionally marketed and sold illegally misbranded dietary supplements whose “prominent and systematic mislabeling” have harmed the public.
The 19-page complaint alleges more specifically that Golo has broken the law by claiming its “Release” supplement can help consumers overcome “insulin resistance,” which the company claims in its marketing to be a major obstacle for those attempting to lose weight and a condition that can lead to “numerous diseases.” The issue, the lawsuit alleges, is that Golo’s claims with regard to its supplement, when viewed together, either “explicitly or implicitly” claim the product can mitigate or prevent disease.
“With knowledge of growing consumer demand for diet pills, Defendant has intentionally marketed and sold its illegal Products using false and misleading labeling and advertising,” the suit out of California’s Eastern District alleges. “Defendant’s prominent and systematic mislabeling of the Product and its false and deceptive advertising form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business practices that harms the public and, if unstopped, could lead to substantial societal harm.”
According to the lawsuit, insulin resistance is a cardio metabolic risk factor for metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions that together increase a person’s risk of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes, and “needs to be diagnosed clinically.”
Golo claims, however, that its supplement is “the natural solution to insulin resistance,” according to the suit, and even goes so far as to provide a questionnaire to help “diagnose” this condition. Moreover, the defendant’s marketing unlawfully cites studies in populations that include those who are obese and who have diabetes, the case claims.
The lawsuit charges that Golo’s claims amount to implied disease claims under federal law, making the products misbranded and illegal to sell in California.
“Defendant intended for Plaintiff and the Class members to be deceived or misled,” the complaint charges.
Further still, the suit says the defendant’s dietary supplement is additionally misbranded in that the product’s label fails to include adequate directions for use, which by law are to enable a layperson to use a drug safely and for its intended purposes.
“The Product is offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes,” the complaint asserts.
With regard to Golo’s claim that its dietary supplement is “clinically proven,” the case alleges this “misleading” statement is used as a means to “boost [the defendant’s] sales and separate itself from competition.” In order for a claim to be considered scientifically and clinically proven, however, it must be “widely accepted in its applicable field and have overwhelming evidence supporting it,” and a consensus must exist within the scientific community that agree with the representations, according to the lawsuit. Anything less, and a claim cannot be made that a certain product is “scientifically and clinically proven,” the suit relays.
“In fact, Golo admits that the studies upon which they rely are only ‘pilot studies’ commissioned by Defendant,” the suit alleges. “None of these studies have gone through the rigorous steps of being peer reviewed, and not part of legitimate scientific publications.”
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.