The class action lawsuit was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, citing independent testing commissioned by the plaintiff that allegedly detected approximately 404 mg of omega-3 fatty acids per two-capsule serving.
Cases involving alleged differences between label declarations and product testing are fairly common and relatively easy for plaintiffs’ attorneys to pursue, according to Asa Waldstein, founder and principal of Apex Compliance.
“These types of alleged label mismatches are common and somewhat easy for plaintiff attorneys to bring, since label testing is fairly inexpensive, and the ‘consumer didn’t get what they paid for’ argument is relatively simple to make,” he told NutraIngredients.
Testing at the center of complaint
According to the complaint, the front of the Qunol Ultra Omega-3 Fish Oil package states “1000 mg Omega-3.”
“Independent laboratory testing in May 2026, however, demonstrates that the Qunol Fish Oil contains substantially less omega-3 fatty acids than represented,” the complaint stated.
The testing cited in the lawsuit allegedly found less than half of the amount stated on the front of the package.
Waldstein said brands need to account for ingredient degradation and manufacturing variation when determining how much of an ingredient to include in a product.
“Companies should keep in mind that label claims should be at 100%+ at the time of expiration,” he said.
“This means working with the manufacturer to ensure ingredient overages that take into account stability testing, manufacturing, and ingredient variation is an essential part of label and GMP compliance,” he explained.
The amount of overage needed can depend on the ingredient. Waldstein pointed to probiotics and vitamin D as examples that may degrade more quickly, while minerals such as calcium are typically more stable.
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that she relied on the omega-3 representation when purchasing the product.
“Had Plaintiff known that the Qunol Fish Oil did not provide the represented amount of omega-3 fatty acids, she would not have purchased it or would have paid substantially less,” the complaint stated.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
Published testing may draw attention
The suit also cited previous Consumer Reports testing that allegedly found a lower level of omega-3 than the amount listed on the Qunol label.
The reference to Consumer Reports caught Waldstein’s attention. He said plaintiffs’ attorneys may be watching published product testing for possible cases.
“The demand letter and class action ‘industry’ is lucrative, and plaintiff attorneys will focus on actions that can yield returns, such as ‘proven’ claims, ‘natural’ claims, and label declarations,” he said.
For companies that have already had products flagged in publications such as Consumer Reports, Waldstein recommended taking another look at the products to make sure they meet label claims.
“I expect these types of lawsuits to continue, so now is a good time for brands to review their labels and GMP documentation again to help mitigate the risk of lawsuits,” Waldstein said.
NutraIngredients contacted Quten Research Institute for comment on the lawsuit. The company responded: “For questions regarding the class action matter, we are unable to provide additional information directly.”
