Olly Sued Over Alleged Serving Misrepresentation in Melatonin Products

A suit was filed on Friday in the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Hope Murphy and Carol Lesh (both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) against defendant Olly Public Benefit Corporation. The class action complaint alleges that the defendant’s melatonin products contain a much higher serving of melatonin, a supplement that can alter brain chemistry, than is advertised on the product’s labeling.

The defendant manufactures and markets melatonin supplements, which are intended to treat sleep problems, anxiety, and more. Each product is advertised to possess a specific amount of melatonin.

Despite the labeling, which notes the supposed amount of melatonin in a given product, the complaint explains that scientific testing has revealed that the defendant’s melatonin products contain “substantial and random overdoses of melatonin.” Specifically, they claim that a university mass-spectrometry used LC-MS to test Olly Melatonin. Their testing uncovered that the true melatonin dose of the products ranged from 165% to 274% more than the claimed dosage. One product had three times the amount of melatonin listed on the label.

The plaintiffs assert that when picking up a bottle of Olly Melatonin, they expect for the product to contain the dosage of melatonin that it was advertised to contain. Murphy and Lesh explain that “consumers need melatonin supplements to be accurately dosed and labelled, so that consumers aren’t unknowingly ingesting more neurohormone than they intend to take.” The complaint says that the defendant’s product packaging even notes on its bottles that they do not recommend ingesting more melatonin than the suggested serving.

The complaint also contends that the defendant is overcharging consumers, arguing that the price of Olly products would “crater” if consumers were aware that the dosage and labeling was seriously inaccurate.

The complaint cites violations of State Consumer Protection Acts, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury, class certification, favorable judgment on each count, damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, an injunction, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief deemed reasonable by the Court.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dovel & Luner, LLP.