Class Action: Nature's Bounty Biotin Provides No Health Benefits at All

A 17-page proposed class action lawsuit against NBTY, Inc. and Nature’s Bounty, Inc. alleges some of the companies’ Biotin products, despite advertising and label representations claiming they support healthy hair, skin and nails, provide no health benefits at all.

The plaintiff summarily alleges NBTY and Nature’s Bounty’s Biotin health claims are “false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive consumers.”

What does the case allege?

Filed in California federal court, the complaint scathingly alleges that, save for a very small segment of the population with “exceedingly rare” biotin deficiency conditions, the below products are generally unneeded, superfluous, and will not provide benefits of any kind, let alone support healthy hair, skin and nails:

The case also takes issue with the defendants’ claims that their Biotin products provide some level of energy support.

“In short, [the defendants’] Biotin products are worthless and provide no health benefits,” the court papers say.

Yikes. Can we get a little more scientific?

Thought you’d never ask!

According to the lawsuit, Biotin’s sole active ingredient—biotin—is a water-soluble B vitamin found in fruits, vegetables, salmon, and cereals, among other foods. Biotin plays a role in the body as a biochemical co-factor (“a helper of sorts,” the case says) for some enzymatic reactions, as well as the metabolism of fats, carbs, and amino acids.

Only a finite amount of biotin is needed daily for the human body to handle its enzymatic functions. Per the case, once biotin levels in the body are sufficient, the body simply doesn’t use the excess biotin.

The lawsuit notes that a few people—namely those with “exceedingly rare” biotin deficiency conditions and those who ingest excessive amounts of raw egg whites—require supplementary biotin. Healthy people, the complaint continues, already possess “more than adequate, if not excessive” biotin levels.

“Yet, the 5000 mcg products are 150 times more than the [adequate intake] and the 10,000 mcg products are 300 times more than the [adequate intake],” the case says, adding that although no official daily recommended intake benchmark exists for biotin, such “mega-doses” far surpass anything that can be considered beneficial.

But surely the Biotin products have at least some benefits, no?

The lawsuit notes that the only scientific evidence that supports taking biotin supplements pertain to the rare demographic of individuals with biotin deficiency conditions, as they may experience symptoms that include hair loss or skin problems.

Even further, the case cites a 2000 National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine Report on this very topic, which concluded that “no definitive studies demonstrate evidence of biotin deficiency in normal individuals in any group resulting from inadequate intakes.”

Tell me about the plaintiff.

The San Diego consumer behind the action claims she was exposed to and relied on the defendants’ biotin health benefit claims between roughly 2014 and early 2015. The woman claims she spent around $20 on the defendants’ 10,000 mcg Health & Beauty rapid release liquid softgel products, which she stopped purchasing after she learned they offered no true health benefits, the lawsuit says.

Who is covered by the proposed class?

The case seeks to cover a proposed multi-state class and a California-only subclass:

• Multi-State Class – Includes consumers who purchased the aforementioned Biotin products in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington state within the applicable statute of limitations.
• California-only Class – Includes consumers in California who bought the defendants’ Biotin products within the court-defined limitations period.

The full complaint can be read below.