A suit was filed last Friday in the Eastern District of New York by plaintiff Timothy Brown against defendant Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX). The class action complaint alleges that the defendant falsely advertised one of their main products, the energy drink BANG, as containing creatine when it did not.
VPX describes the product at issue as a “performance-enhancing beverage.” The plaintiff asserts that the defendant wrongfully represented the ingredients of BANG in an effort to sell the product. Specifically, they advertised the product’s main ingredient as “super creatine” when the product does not contain any actual creatine.
Creatine is a popular dietary supplement that has dominated markets with over $400 million in annual sales, the complaint said. The supplement has been shown to “boost exercise performance, promote greater fitness gains, positively effect a consumer’s physical health, and potentially aid in cognitive performance,” according to the plaintiff.
Despite the claim that the BANG energy drink consists of super creatine, Brown explains that the main component of the drink is instead Creatyl-L-leucine, which is “fundamentally different” and does not have the same beneficial properties as creatine.
Brown contends that the term “super creatine” used by the defendant for BANG is entirely false. VPX uses the super creatine label to tout the product as “potent brain and body fuel,” which is misleading as the product contains no creatine. Since creatine is part of a current trend in fitness, Brown posits that VPX “capitalized on this trend” and the misuse of the term “super creatine” was purposefully done at the expense of consumers.
Further, the website that advertises BANG cites university studies that serve to legitimize the benefits of their drink, but in reality, all of the studies were funded by VPX and “do not provide any discernable scientific evidence that Creatyl-l-Leucine can provide any performance benefit in the body or in the brain.” VPX markets itself as a pharmaceutical company, which Brown argues is another false representation. Ultimately, the defendant leads a “false and deceptive advertising campaign” surrounding BANG which is executed “to the detriment of the consuming public.” Brown is seeking class certification for other individuals who paid for the defendant’s misleading product BANG.
The complaint cites unjust enrichment, fraud, and two violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Brown is seeking class certification, disgorgement of profits, statutory and punitive damages, litigation fees, civil penalties, and any other relief deemed equitable by the court.
The plaintiff is represented in the litigation by Shub Law Firm.
