The Ancient Nutrition lawsuit concerns allegations of false and misleading advertising related to the company’s health and supplement products. Plaintiffs accuse Ancient Brands LLC, which does business as Ancient Nutrition, of making unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy and ingredient composition of its dietary supplements, particularly its “Brain Boost” and “Bone Broth Protein” products. The lawsuit contends that these claims mislead consumers into believing the products have scientifically proven brain and health benefits which they do not actually possess.
Background of the Ancient Nutrition Lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by plaintiff Marietta Viera, representing a proposed class of consumers. It alleges that Ancient Nutrition marketed its “Multi-Collagen Protein, Brain Boost” product as a clinically studied supplement that improves mental clarity and focus. However, the plaintiff claims no scientific or peer-reviewed research validates these claims. Similarly, Ancient Nutrition’s Bone Broth Protein product is challenged for inaccurately representing the quality and digestibility of protein it provides.
The complaint highlights that Ancient Nutrition uses marketing language like “clinically studied,” “proven,” and “backed by research” to create an impression of efficacy while concealing the reality of the products’ ingredient effectiveness.
Parties Involved and Legal Context
The plaintiff, a New York consumer, acts on behalf of herself and all others who purchased these products nationally. Ancient Brands LLC, headquartered in Tennessee, is the defendant. The case is part of a growing trend of consumer class action lawsuits targeting supplement companies for alleged deceptive advertising and inadequate disclosure.
Details of the Ancient Nutrition Lawsuit Allegations or Claims
- False Advertising: Using misleading claims that Brain Boost and Bone Broth Protein have clinically proven health benefits;
- Ingredient Misrepresentation: Failing to disclose the ineffective or low-quality nature of included ingredients;
- Deceptive Labeling: Omitting information regarding protein digestibility and daily value percentages;
- Unjust Enrichment: Profiting from misrepresentations at consumers’ expense.
Legal Claims and Relevant Laws Involved in the Lawsuit
The complaint includes violations of:
- New York General Business Law: addressing fraudulent and deceptive business practices;
- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA): requiring truthful and accurate labeling of dietary supplements;
- Consumer Protection Laws: governing fair marketing and sales practices;
- Class Action Fairness Act: providing jurisdiction for nationwide class action.
Health, Financial, Social, or Industry Impacts of the Lawsuit
Consumers rely heavily on supplement labels and marketing claims when making purchasing decisions, especially for health-related products. The lawsuit seeks to protect consumers from false claims that can lead to wasted money and unmet health expectations.
The supplement industry faces increasing scrutiny and pressure to ensure claims are evidence-based, which may drive higher regulatory compliance and transparency.
Current Status and Recent Developments in the Lawsuit
As of 2025, the lawsuit is active with the court considering motions regarding class certification and discovery. Ancient Nutrition has denied the allegations, maintaining compliance with labeling laws. Settlements or court rulings may address potential compensation and corrective advertising requirements.
Consumer Advice and Business Consequences Related to the Lawsuit
Consumers are advised to approach supplement claims critically, seek evidence-based information, and consult healthcare professionals when considering new products. Companies should ensure marketing materials and product labels truthfully represent product efficacy and ingredient quality to mitigate legal risks.
Conclusion
The Ancient Nutrition lawsuit highlights the ongoing challenges in regulating the dietary supplement industry to protect consumers from deceptive advertising. It emphasizes the need for scientific substantiation of health claims and transparent labeling. The case’s outcome could influence consumer protection standards and corporate practices in the health supplement market.
