Barlean’s Organic Oils, LLC is the defendant in a proposed class action centered on the company’s advertising and labeling of its Greens Supplement Powders.
According to the complaint, Barlean’s tags its supplement powders as, among other superlatives, “Nature’s Perfect Superfood,” a “vegan superfood,” and as helping to provide a “pathway to a better life.” The defendant also allegedly positions the supplements as containing “antioxidant powder,” with the products’ labels stating they can “support cleansing of organs and tissues”; “help improve digestion”; “aid the body’s natural detoxification”; and “promote a healthy immune system."
The plaintiff charges, however, that Barlean’s representations of its Greens Supplement Powders are uniformly false and misleading because the products’ health effects are wholly unsubstantiated. According to the lawsuit, the defendant’s representations of the products violate the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).
Further, the lawsuit alleges the defendant’s products contain more lead than permissible under California law, a detail Barlean’s fails to clearly and reasonably point out on its labeling. From the complaint:
“In addition, the Products contain lead in amounts that exceed the .5 mcg/day allowable limit for lead under California’s Proposition 65. According to independent laboratory testing, the Products substantially exceed the .5 mcg/day allowable limit. The Product purchased by [the plaintiff], for example, contained 1.43 mcg of lead per serving, or almost three times the daily limit set by Prop 65.”
The case, which does not allege any Proposition 65 violations, says that should someone use Barlean’s Green Supplement Powders one to three times per day as instructed on the product’s label, he or she could consume “as much as 4.29 mcg, or almost nine times the .5 mcg/day” allowable lead limit set under Proposition 65.
“Reasonable consumers purchased the Products believing, among other things, that they were in compliance with all applicable California regulations and safe according to California regulatory thresholds,” the suit reads. “Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Products if they had known that they contained lead in excess of the California Proposition 65 limits, or would have purchased them on different terms.”