Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California by California consumer Daniel Ruchman, the lawsuit alleges independent laboratory testing of three flavors found protein levels ranging from 19.69 g to 20.69 g per serving.
The complaint alleges the products violate federal labeling requirements and California consumer protection laws, stating that the beverages are “misbranded and falsely advertised because the Products contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the Products’ labels.”
The plaintiff alleges the products are marketed as containing 22 g of protein per bottle and argues the reported shortfalls are material because protein is a key attribute consumers consider when purchasing sports nutrition products.
Complaint targets protein claims
According to the complaint, the plaintiff commissioned testing of three Ryse Clear Protein Drink flavors through EMSL Analytical using AOAC Method 992.15.
The lawsuit argues the beverages qualify as “Class I” foods under FDA labeling regulations because whey protein isolate is added during formulation and therefore must contain at least the declared amount of protein.
Ruchman also alleges he relied on the products’ protein claims when making his purchasing decision and would not have purchased the beverages, or would have paid less, had he known their alleged protein content. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of a proposed class of California consumers.
Industry sees continued protein litigation
The case reflects a broader trend in food and dietary supplement litigation, Asa Waldstein, principal at Apex Compliance and chair of the Supplement Advisory Group, told NutraIngredients.
“Protein-content litigation is a continuing trend,” Waldstein said.
He explained that “one reason plaintiffs’ attorneys are focusing on this area is that many companies do not fully understand the difference between total grams of protein and the PDCAAS-adjusted amount used to calculate the percent Daily Value.”
PDCAAS, or the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score, is the FDA-recognized method for evaluating protein quality by accounting for both amino acid composition and digestibility when calculating the protein percent Daily Value for labeling purposes.
Waldstein said FDA generally allows companies to omit the protein percent Daily Value when they are not making a protein claim. However, labels that include claims such as “high protein” or “30 grams of protein” generally must declare and correctly calculate the protein %DV using the PDCAAS-adjusted amount.
He noted that some brands instead emphasize ingredient amounts, such as “10 grams of collagen,” rather than protein-content claims, although the overall label and consumer takeaway still matter.
For manufacturers, the lawsuit highlights the importance of verifying finished-product compliance rather than relying solely on supplier documentation or formulation specifications, he added.
“The lesson is that companies should not treat protein labeling as copying a number from a raw-material specification or formulation sheet...they should verify the nutrient content of the finished product using the PDCAAS method and account for normal lot-to-lot variation,” he continued.
NutraIngredients reached out to Ryse Up Sports Nutrition Founder & CEO Nicholas Stella for comment. No response has been received by the time of publication.
