The settlements resolve coordinated lawsuits brought on behalf of consumers across nine states challenging Joint Juice advertising and labeling claims that its glucosamine- and chondroitin-containing supplement beverage supports joint health.
Plaintiffs in the cases argued that the claimed benefits were not supported by scientific evidence.
Evolution of the litigation
The settlements arose from two California lawsuits, Bland and Sonner, and received final approval after years of litigation involving related state and federal cases, multiple appeals and a federal jury trial.
As detailed in the final approval order, plaintiff Patricia Bland filed a California class action against Premier Nutrition in January 2019 on behalf of California consumers of Joint Juice products purchased between June 21, 2016 and September 10, 2020.
Plaintiff Kathleen Sonner later filed a separate California action covering an earlier California class period after the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of an earlier federal case for lack of jurisdiction. The resulting settlement covers California purchasers who purchased Joint Juice products between March 1, 2009, and June 20, 2016.
Court records show that additional actions filed on behalf of consumers in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania were later coordinated with the proceedings involving the Bland and Sonner actions and ultimately resolved through settlements.
While Bland and Sonner addressed California and multi-state claims, New York purchasers pursued separate claims in Montera v. Premier Nutrition, obtaining a jury verdict that largely survived appeal and likely bolstered plaintiffs’ leverage in the broader settlement negotiations.
Following a nine-day trial, a federal jury found Joint Juice packaging deceptive under New York consumer protection law. In August 2024, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the verdict, remanding certain damages for further consideration while affirming that statutory damages under New York consumer protection law could be calculated on a per-violation basis, substantially increasing potential exposure.
Extensive discovery and appeals
By the time settlement negotiations concluded, court filings confirmed that the parties had conducted more than 64 depositions, reviewed over 500,000 pages of documents, exchanged 48 expert reports or declarations and prepared for trial three times. The litigation also generated nearly 100 court orders, five Ninth Circuit appeals and a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dispute centered on consumer interpretation of claims
As detailed in the second amended complaint in the Bland case, plaintiffs alleged that Joint Juice marketing conveyed claims that the products could help maintain healthy joints, support cartilage and improve joint comfort and that these representations were reinforced through website content, endorsements and references to the Arthritis Foundation.
The opinion referenced on-pack Joint Juice messaging including “Use Daily for Healthy, Flexible Joints” and representations that glucosamine and chondroitin “help keep cartilage lubricated and flexible.” It also noted evidence presented at trial that Premier targeted consumers suffering from osteoarthritis and joint pain.
Plaintiffs further alleged that the products targeted consumers experiencing age-related joint discomfort or osteoarthritis symptoms.
According to plaintiff’s attorney Timothy Blood, the verdict ultimately focused on the overall impression conveyed to consumers rather than any single statement on product labels.
“The jury found the label as a whole, of which the structure-function claim was a part, was deceptive, and structure-function claims that are deceptive do not enjoy any protection,” he said.
According to Terence Hawley, a partner at Reed Smith who focuses on class action defense and complex business disputes, the case illustrates how courts may evaluate not only the specific language of a claim but also the broader context in which consumers encounter marketing messages.
“All of these claims can lead to liability,” he said, referring to express claims, implied claims and branding language. “A key consideration from a risk perspective is that labeling claims will be viewed in context from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable consumer.”
Scientific evidence becomes a focal point
The cases also evaluated the reliability of the source and perceived independence of the scientific evidence provided in assessing the marketing claims in question.
The second amended complaint in the Bland case noted that plaintiffs relied on randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses and treatment guidelines from organizations including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American College of Rheumatology and the European Food Safety Authority to support allegations that glucosamine and chondroitin did not provide the benefits represented in Joint Juice marketing.
At trial in the New York Montera case, plaintiffs presented peer-reviewed, non-industry-funded studies on glucosamine and chondroitin. They argued that the findings showed no meaningful effect on joint function or pain, while Premier relied on industry-funded studies supporting the ingredients’ efficacy.
Blood said the litigation highlights the importance of evaluating the totality of evidence supporting an advertising claim.
“A clear and objective view of all the available scientific evidence is required to support all implied and express advertising claims, and manufacturers should not merely recite the word ‘supports’ and expect to escape liability,” he explained.
Hawley, meanwhile, said the litigation demonstrates how scientific disputes can evolve once they reach a courtroom and that in this case, the jurors ultimately found the plaintiffs’ evidence more persuasive. He noted that “simply having some type of substantiation for labeling claims may not be enough in court.
“Companies need to consider the reliability and persuasiveness of their substantiation evidence and how it will hold up in court,” he said, adding that courts may leave scientific questions to juries, particularly when both sides present competing expert testimony.
Lessons from the litigation
While the Joint Juice settlements serve as a cautionary tale, Hawley said they are atypical and not necessarily indicative of a wider pattern.
He noted that the combined settlement funds exceeded the retail sales value of the affected products—an outcome he described as uncommon in consumer false advertising litigation.
The unusually large settlement reflected, in part, plaintiffs’ success in the Montera litigation, where they secured both a favorable jury verdict and an appeals court ruling that increased Premier Nutrition’s potential liability. The Ninth Circuit held that statutory damages under New York law could be calculated on a per-violation basis, meaning damages could be tied to each qualifying purchase rather than being limited to a single recovery per consumer, raising the stakes of the litigation considerably.
Hawley also highlighted that the case demonstrates how years of litigation, favorable rulings and trial outcomes can influence settlement negotiations.
“The claims of New York class members went to a jury verdict, which is rare, and several issues were appealed,” he said. “Overall, the verdict and key rulings gave the plaintiffs’ attorneys leverage to negotiate favorable terms while more trials and appeals were pending,” he added.
To avoid class action cases such as these, companies are advised to periodically review substantiation and compliance practices across product labels, websites and advertising channels, ensuring robust compliance protocols and plain-English disclosures that avoid technically complex or ambiguous claims.
Blood, meanwhile, expects continued scrutiny of products marketed for age-related conditions and symptom management.
“Especially as the population ages, I anticipate more manufacturers to advertise supplements either expressly or implicitly to treat various ailments, and a structure-function claim is not going to save a company that falsely advertises supplements,” he said
