At issue in this class action are Raze energy drinks, made by Repp Sports, LLC. The complaint alleges that the company advertises the drinks as containing certain substances that promote focus and recovery, but that these substances are undetectable in lab tests of the drinks.
The Nationwide Class for this action is all persons in the US who bought Raze-branded energy drinks during the class period. There is also a Florida Subclass for persons in Florida.
The Raze drinks come in different flavors, including Voodoo, Apollo, Galaxy Burst, Guava Mango, Strawberry Colada, Sour Gummy Worms, Watermelon Frost, Grape Bubblegum, and Phantom Freeze. The drinks are supposedly identical except for the flavoring.
The complaint alleges that Repp advertises Raze as containing Alpha GPC and Branched Chain Amino Acids (BCAAs) that provide energy benefits to the customers who consumer them.
On their packaging, the complaint says, the Raze drinks have these claims:
However, the complaint claims that “numerous” samples were sent to an analytical laboratory, but they were found to have “non-detectable” levels of Alpha GPC and BCAAs. Because of this, the complaint says that the claims that the drinks can improve mental focus and clarity or aid mental and physical recovery are false and misleading.
This is not to say that the laboratory found nothing at all in the drinks. The complaint claims that “the testing showed repeatedly and consistently that the Products contained the free form amino acids Glycine and Serine, which are not listed on the label, which is unlawful under state and Federal law.” It adds, “Plaintiff and Class Members do not expect undisclosed ingredients to be contained within the products.”
The products fall into the category of “food” which is regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The complaint says that Repp’s “false and misleading label statements violate 21 USC § 343(a) and the so-called ‘little FDCA’ statutes adopted by many States, which deem food misbranded when ‘its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.’”
The complaint alleges that the company has broken state laws against misbranding, breached warranties, and unjustly enriched itself. It asks the court to provide injunctive relief in the form of requiring the company to stop marketing its products in a deceptive manner and otherwise correct any erroneous impression the public may have about the products.