Class Action: BodyArmor ‘Camouflaged Junk Food’ as Sports Drink [UPDATE]
Last Updated on July 1, 2022
Silver et al. v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC
Filed: January 28, 2020 ◆§ 3:20-cv-00633
BA Sports Nutrition is facing a class action suit over allegations the company marketed “unlawfully fortified junk food” as a healthy option for consumers.
Case Updates
July 1, 2022 – BodyArmor Sports Drink Class Action Settled, Dismissed
The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed with prejudice in light of an apparent settlement between BA Sports Nutrition and the plaintiffs.
On May 17, 2022, attorneys for both parties submitted to the court a notice of conditional settlement that states that the company and the plaintiffs had “agreed to settle this matter.” The parties’ subsequent two-page joint stipulation of dismissal, which was granted by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on June 17, 2022, can be found here.
Details of the settlement are not publicly available.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
August 3, 2021 – Amended Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss
The judge overseeing the case detailed on this page initially granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case on June 4, 2020 but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims.
In the June 4 order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the defendant’s statements that its BodyArmor sports drink could provide “Superior Hydration” and “More Natural Better Hydration” are “non-actionable puffery” and found that a reasonable consumer would not be deceived about the nature of the drink.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed on July 7, 2020 an amended class action complaint, found here.
While the defendant again filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, this motion was denied by the judge on September 5, 2020. In the September order, Judge Illston found that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled new allegations that the fruit-based labeling on the BodyArmor drinks would mislead and deceive a reasonable consumer.
“[W]hile the Court previously found that plaintiff’s allegations about ‘Superior Hydration’ and health/sugar content were insufficient, plaintiffs have both amplified those allegations and added new allegations about the fruit-based labeling that, when viewed holistically, plausibly state a claim that a reasonable consumer was misled into believing that the drinks ‘benefitted their health and well-being,’” the judge wrote.
A proposed class action lawsuit claims that BA Sports Nutrition, LLC misrepresented the health benefits and nutrient content of its BodyArmor SuperDrink and deceptively marketed the product to the general public as a healthy option for non-athletes.
According to the case, BA Sports Nutrition claims on its labels that BodyArmor sports drink provides “more natural” and “better” hydration than water or competing sports drinks. The company furthers this representation, the suit continues, through advertisements and paid endorsements that are directed at the general public, including children. BodyArmor’s marketing material also allegedly states the product is packed with various vitamins and therefore offers health benefits like lower blood pressure.
Despite the defendant’s representations, the case contends, BodyArmor is “not nutrient beneficial” for the general public, to whom the drink is marketed. Instead of being a healthy option for the average American, BodyArmor is “an unlawfully fortified junk food” with an excessive amount of sugar, according to the suit.
“In essence,” the complaint states, “BodyArmor is a dressed-up soda masquerading as a health drink. A single 16-ounce serving of BodyArmor has 36 grams of sugar, which is the equivalent of nine teaspoons of sugar.”
The amount of sugar contained in BodyArmor exceeds the daily limit of six teaspoons of added sugar recommended for women and children by the American Heart Association, the case explains, and is equivalent to the recommended daily maximum of nine teaspoons of sugar for adult men.
The lawsuit further contends BA Sports Nutrition has admitted to the Council of the Better Business Bureaus that there is no evidence BodyArmor provides “superior hydration” to water or other sports drinks. In addition, the case argues that the defendant’s claims that its products are made with natural ingredients are false, because the drinks contain unnatural ingredients, such as magnesium oxide, vitamin E and folic acid.
The lawsuit also takes issue with BodyArmor’s claims about its vitamin content. According to the case, the FDA has prohibited the fortification of junk foods in order to prevent “the deceptive promotion of foods as healthy that do not have a net nutritional benefit, or which are otherwise problematic nutritionally, simply by infusing them with some vitamin or vitamins.”
Lastly, the suit claims that BodyArmor’s marketing is deceptive when compared to the practices of companies like PepsiCo., who specifically targets athletes rather than the general public in marketing its Gatorade sports drink. In contrast, the suit argues that BodyArmor aimed its marketing squarely at the average consumer, including by launching campaigns specifically targeting children and their parents.
With regard to the named plaintiffs, the case claims that none of the four individuals were endurance athletes, but were all convinced by the defendant’s marketing that BodyArmor was “appropriate and optimal for them” and bought the drink as a result. If they had known the truth about the drink’s content, the suit contends, the plaintiffs would not have purchased BodyArmor or would not have been willing to pay as much as they did.
The lawsuit looks to represent everyone in the U.S. who purchased one or more BodyArmor sports drinks during the applicable time period, with separate classes for consumers in California, New York and Pennsylvania.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.