Nature’s Bounty Averts Marketing Class Action

     (CN) – A Florida man failed to prove Nature’s Bounty lied when it said its “Flush Free Niacin” promotes heart health, a federal judge ruled.
     Anthony Mazzeo filed a class action against the Nature’s Bounty on March 5, 2014, claiming the supplement company makes a number of false and misleading claims in order to deceive otherwise reasonable consumers.
     The lawsuit focused on one product in particular, “Flush Free Niacin,” and Nature’s Bounty claim that it “promotes heart health.”
     The product is a derivative form of Niacin — Niacin being a commonly prescribed treatment for cardiovascular disease. Nature’s Bounty says what makes its product distinctive is that it does not result in the flushing of the skin, a common side effect of taking Niacin.
     Despite its name, however, Flush Free Niacin contains no Niacin, but is instead a form of the vitamin B3. Mazzeo claimed that distinction rendered the health-related claims of Nature’s Bounty irrelevant.
     He said the pills do not promote heart health, that the advertising is therefore harmful and misrepresentative, and that he and the class were entitled to relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
     U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom disagreed, citing several reasons why she was dismissing the lawsuit.
     To begin with, she said, Mazzeo purchased the supplement at a third-party realtor (Walgreens), and therefore it is not covered by an express warranty between the parties.
     Bloom also said the plaintiff was unable to prove his negligence claim, because to make that argument, , the complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
     The judge also took issue with the three studies Mazzeo cited in his complaint to proved the allege ineffectiveness of the supplement.
     Bloom said the three sources were unreliable and/or biased because one was written by a Nature’s Bounty contributor, while the two others were written by doctors regarding specific cases.
     Finally, she said, Nature’s Bounty dietary supplements, all have a disclaimer on their bottles which states “not intended to cure or prevent any diseases”. This statement protects the company from complaints such as the one brought by Mazzeo, Bloom said.
     (CN) – A Florida man failed to prove Nature’s Bounty lied when it said its “Flush Free Niacin” promotes heart health, a federal judge ruled.
     Anthony Mazzeo filed a class action against the Nature’s Bounty on March 5, 2014, claiming the supplement company makes a number of false and misleading claims in order to deceive otherwise reasonable consumers.
     The lawsuit focused on one product in particular, “Flush Free Niacin,” and Nature’s Bounty claim that it “promotes heart health.”
     The product is a derivative form of Niacin — Niacin being a commonly prescribed treatment for cardiovascular disease. Nature’s Bounty says what makes its product distinctive is that it does not result in the flushing of the skin, a common side effect of taking Niacin.
     Despite its name, however, Flush Free Niacin contains no Niacin, but is instead a form of the vitamin B3. Mazzeo claimed that distinction rendered the health-related claims of Nature’s Bounty irrelevant.
     He said the pills do not promote heart health, that the advertising is therefore harmful and misrepresentative, and that he and the class were entitled to relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
     U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom disagreed, citing several reasons why she was dismissing the lawsuit.
     To begin with, she said, Mazzeo purchased the supplement at a third-party realtor (Walgreens), and therefore it is not covered by an express warranty between the parties.
     Bloom also said the plaintiff was unable to prove his negligence claim, because to make that argument, , the complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
     The judge also took issue with the three studies Mazzeo cited in his complaint to proved the allege ineffectiveness of the supplement.
     Bloom said the three sources were unreliable and/or biased because one was written by a Nature’s Bounty contributor, while the two others were written by doctors regarding specific cases.
     Finally, she said, Nature’s Bounty dietary supplements, all have a disclaimer on their bottles which states “not intended to cure or prevent any diseases”. This statement protects the company from complaints such as the one brought by Mazzeo, Bloom said.

%d bloggers like this: