Quest Bars have been embroiled in a class action lawsuit in recent years over allegations that the protein bars contain excessive sugars and do not align with the company’s “low carb” and “low sugar” marketing claims. The lawsuit alleges that Quest Bars contain up to 16-17 grams of net carbohydrates per bar, despite being marketed as low-carb products. This has raised questions over the accuracy of Quest’s nutrition labels and health claims.
What are the details of the Quest Bar lawsuit?
The Quest Bar lawsuit was initially filed in October 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs allege that Quest Nutrition makes false and misleading representations about its protein bars, misleading consumers into believing the bars are low in net carbs and sugar when they actually contain up to 16-17 grams of net carbs per bar.
Specifically, the lawsuit contends that Quest Bars contain more net carbs and sugar alcohols than are represented on the nutrition labels and in the company’s marketing claims. Sugar alcohols like erythritol and soluble corn fiber contribute to the total carbohydrate content, even though they are not fully digestible. The plaintiffs argue that Quest Bars’ total net carbs are underrepresented.
The plaintiffs also allege that statements like “low carb,” “low sugar,” and “net carbs 2g” on Quest Bar packaging are false and misleading. They argue these marketing claims deceive consumers into believing the bars are low in net carbs when the true numbers are much higher.
Who are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit?
The lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit are consumers Elizabeth Archer-Rosenthal and Jeremy Rosenthal. They filed the lawsuit on behalf of all persons nationwide who purchased Quest Bars over the past four years.
The lawsuit seeks to include all consumers who were misled by Quest’s alleged misrepresentations about the bars’ net carbs and sugar content. The plaintiffs argue that these consumers overpaid for Quest Bars and would not have purchased them absent the mislabeling.
What compensation or damages are sought?
The Quest Bars lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate class members for the alleged false marketing. However, the plaintiffs have not publicly specified an exact dollar amount sought.
Typically in a class action lawsuit, damages would equal the total amount that class members overpaid for the mislabeled products. Additional punitive or statutory damages may also be sought to punish the defendant’s alleged misconduct.
The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial for the case. In addition to damages, they seek injunctive relief to stop Quest Nutrition from continuing the alleged mislabeling and misrepresentation.
What does Quest say in response to the allegations?
In response to the lawsuit, Quest Nutrition denies any wrongdoing or false marketing. The company maintains that it accurately represents the net carbs and sugar content of its products, including Quest Bars.
Quest acknowledges that sugar alcohols like erythritol do contribute to total carbohydrate content. However, the company says these sugar alcohols have a negligible effect on blood glucose and insulin levels. Therefore, Quest excludes sugar alcohols from the net carb counts on its labels based on FDA guidelines.
Additionally, Quest points out that nutrition labels clearly list the total carbohydrate content from all carbohydrate sources. The company argues this provides consumers with full information to make informed choices.
Has Quest attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed?
Yes, Quest Nutrition filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in January 2020. The company put forth several arguments seeking dismissal:
– The plaintiffs failed to adequately show that reasonable consumers would be deceived by Quest’s labeling and marketing.
– Quest Bars’ packaging includes detailed factual nutrition information for consumers to evaluate.
– All of the challenged statements like “low carb” are non-actionable puffery that no reasonable consumer would rely upon.
– The plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law governing nutrition labeling. Companies have flexibility in how they calculate and disclose net carbs.
However, in October 2020 the court denied Quest’s motion to dismiss. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to proceed with the lawsuit at this stage.
What is the current status of the Quest Bar lawsuit?
Following the denied motion to dismiss, the Quest Bar lawsuit entered the discovery phase in 2021. During discovery, each side can request relevant documents and information to help prove their case.
According to court records, the plaintiffs’ discovery efforts have focused on obtaining internal Quest documents, marketing materials, nutritional testing, and consumer surveys. The plaintiffs argue this evidence will reveal what Quest knew about the bars’ true sugar content and show a deliberate intent to mislead.
In September 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court to compel Quest to provide additional documents and discovery responses. This indicates some dispute between the parties over the scope of discovery.
Currently, the Quest Bars lawsuit remains ongoing as the discovery process continues. No trial date has been set yet.
What are the potential outcomes of the lawsuit?
There are several potential outcomes for the Quest Bars class action lawsuit:
– Settlement – The most common outcome is that the parties agree to settle the case outside of court to avoid an expensive trial. A settlement would provide monetary compensation to class members and require Quest to change its labeling and marketing.
– Quest victory – The court could rule in favor of Quest’s motion for summary judgment or the company could prevail at trial. This would end the lawsuit in Quest’s favor.
– Plaintiff victory – The plaintiffs could win at trial, resulting in a damage award against Quest. The company would likely have to pay substantial monetary damages and change its product labeling and marketing.
– Dismissal – There is still a possibility the court could grant a renewed dismissal motion by Quest before the case reaches trial. This would end the lawsuit in Quest’s favor.
The outcome will depend on the strength of evidence uncovered in discovery and presented at trial. At this stage, settlement remains a strong possibility given the risks and costs associated with continuing such a large class action.
What are the larger implications of the Quest Bars lawsuit?
The Quest Bars lawsuit highlights larger issues regarding truth in food labeling and marketing. There has been increasing consumer scrutiny and class action litigation related to misleading labeling and health claims on food products.
This lawsuit serves as a reminder that federal food labeling regulations still provide flexibility to companies in how they calculate and disclose nutrition information. There may be disconnects between the intent of the regulations and consumer perceptions.
Regardless of the outcome, the Quest Bars lawsuit demonstrates that consumers are willing to challenge labeling they perceive as misleading to get accountability from food companies. It reflects growing consumer demand for greater clarity, transparency, and honesty from brands regarding ingredients, nutrition, and health attributes of packaged food products.
The case puts other food companies on notice to re-evaluate their own labeling and marketing claims to ensure they align with a reasonable consumer’s interpretation. More class action litigation and FDA regulatory actions in this area are likely on the horizon.
Conclusion
The Quest Bars class action lawsuit alleges the protein bars contain excessive hidden sugars and net carbs compared to their marketing claims of being low-carb and low-sugar. Quest denies any wrongdoing and argues its labels accurately disclose nutrition information.
The outcome of the lawsuit carries high stakes, either resulting in a costly settlement and rebranding if Quest loses, or affirming the sufficiency of its labeling if Quest wins. This case reflects growing scrutiny of truth in food labeling amidst competing perspectives on nutrition metrics. How courts interpret “reasonable” consumer perceptions versus technical FDA labeling guidelines will have widespread implications.
Regardless of the final verdict, this lawsuit puts food companies on alert to reevaluate their own labels and claims to meet consumer demand for greater transparency. Truth in labeling will remain a key issue as consumers take companies to task to deliver clarity about a product’s nutrition attributes and ingredients.