Jasper v. Musclepharm Corp.
2015 WL 2375945 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is inapplicable to claims based on written warranties, such as product labels, whose content is otherwise governed by a different federal law, such as the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.
Facts:
- Ramona Jasper purchased FitMiss Fat-Burning supplements, a product manufactured by MusclePharm Corporation.
- The product's label and marketing claimed it would cause "Rapid Weight Loss - Visible Changes in Less Than 2 Weeks" and turn the user's body into a "fat burning machine."
- The marketing also stated that the supplements contained "clinically tested ingredients" to achieve these effects.
- Jasper read and relied on these representations when she decided to purchase the product.
- After using the supplements as directed, Jasper did not experience any weight loss or fat-burning effects.
- Jasper's complaint alleges that the product's key ingredients, such as green tea extract, caffeine, and CLA, are not effective for weight loss as claimed by MusclePharm.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramona Jasper filed a putative class action complaint against MusclePharm Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- Jasper subsequently filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint.
- MusclePharm filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
- The District Judge referred the Motion to Dismiss to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act apply to claims based on allegedly misleading statements on dietary supplement labels, which are regulated under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
No. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) does not apply to claims based on the content of dietary supplement labels because those labels are already governed by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The court's reasoning rests on the plain language of the MMWA, 15 U.S.C. § 2311(d), which explicitly states the Act is 'inapplicable to any written warranty the making or content of which is otherwise governed by Federal law.' Citing a consistent line of cases, the court found that since the FDCA governs the content of dietary supplement labels, the MMWA is preempted. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the FDCA's 'after-the-fact' enforcement for supplements means labels are not 'governed' by it, holding that the method of enforcement does not change the fact that a federal law controls the label's content. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the state-law claims, finding they were pleaded with sufficient specificity, and declined to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine to defer to the FDA, as the core issue was whether a 'reasonable consumer' would be misled—a routine question for a court, not one requiring special agency expertise.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a growing judicial consensus that prevents plaintiffs from using the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as a basis for challenging labels on products regulated by the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, such as dietary supplements, foods, and drugs. This forces plaintiffs in such cases to rely solely on state-law breach of warranty and consumer protection statutes, limiting their avenues for federal relief. The ruling also clarifies that courts will not readily defer to the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine when the central claim involves interpreting how a 'reasonable consumer' would perceive advertising claims, viewing this as a standard judicial function rather than a complex regulatory issue.
Unlock the full brief for Jasper v. Musclepharm Corp.