Class Action Alleges Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein Powder Labels Mislead Consumers as to Protein Content, Quality

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein buyers have been misled in that the labels on containers of the product do not disclose that the quality of the protein powder therein is “largely indigestible” and “provides little to no actual benefit,” a proposed class action claims.

According to the 29-page false advertising case out of New York, Ancient Brands, LLC has intentionally misrepresented the nature and quality of its bone broth protein powders, as well as the sources of the protein, on product labels while unjustly enriching itself in the process.

At issue in the lawsuit is Ancient Brands’ apparent failure to state the amount of protein in its product as a percentage of daily value and/or as calculated by the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected score method while listing instead only the number of grams of protein per serving. Given that the defendant makes specific protein content claims on the products’ labels, Ancient Brands, the complaint says, should have used a more accurate method for calculating protein content, one that takes into account the quality of the protein used. The suit stresses that a protein product’s Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected score is “critically important” since each gram of protein “is not created equal.”

The case argues that although the front label and supplement facts on Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein containers state that consumers will receive 20 grams of protein per serving, this representation is misleading in light of the actual quality of the protein. From the suit:

The lawsuit claims consumers would not have purchased the defendant’s products, or would have paid less for them, had they known the powder would not provide as much useable protein as advertised.

The lawsuit relays that Ancient Brands positions itself as a “nutritional products” company that provides “best-in-class real food nutritional products with wholesome, clean ingredients” through offerings that include its Bone Broth Protein powders, which consist of powdered bone broth meant to be added to hot or cold drinks and other recipes. Per the case, Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein is advertised as a “[s]uperfood protein powder packed with 20 grams of protein plus support for your gut, joint and skin health.”

Because Ancient Brands includes a protein content claim on the front of the products’ labels, it is required by law to disclose protein quality, which the lawsuit says is determined through a “more rigorous testing methodology” known as the Protein Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score (PDAACS). Rather than calculate protein content based on a food’s nitrogen content, which is the method usually utilized for measuring protein, the defendant should have used the PDAACS method to test for protein digestibility and disclose it as a percentage of daily value, the suit says. 

The PDACCS method, which the case says is considered “the most reliable score of protein quality for human nutrition,” compares a test protein to a standard amino acid profile and gives it a score ranging from zero and 1.0, with 1.0 indicating maximum amino acid digestibility, the lawsuit explains. According to the suit, the main source of protein in the defendant’s products, collagen, has a standard amino acid profile of zero.

If the protein powders had been tested for individual amino acids using the PDACCS method, the suit claims, the percentage of daily value would “be much lower than consumers expected” because of the inclusion of collagen, a low-quality protein.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who purchased any of the defendant’s Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein products, including the vanilla, chocolate, pure, turmeric, coffee or banana flavors; any limited, discontinued or seasonal flavors; or any other Ancient Nutrition Bone Broth Protein product that makes a protein claim but fails to state the amount of protein as a percentage of daily value or a value as calculated by the PDAACS method. The case also proposes several subclasses for those who purchased the products in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.