‘Protein Rich’ Claims for Tiger’s Milk Nutrition Bar are False and Misleading, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in New York claims Reckitt Benckiser LLC and subsidiary Schiff Nutrition International have misrepresented the protein content of their supposedly protein-rich Tiger’s Milk Nutrition Bars.

Although Tiger’s Milk bars are labeled by the defendants as “protein rich,” the case claims they do not contain a significant amount of protein when compared to competing products, many of which reportedly contain less sugar. According to the suit, products similar to Tiger’s Milk bars contain almost twice the concentration of protein. The complaint argues that the labeling of the product is material because protein content is an important factor consumers rely on when purchasing nutrition bars and supplements. As the case tells it, the lead plaintiff would not have paid the price he had for the bars had he known the product was not as high in protein content as claimed by the defendants.

Moreover, the lawsuit states that the protein content of the Tiger’s Milk bars falls below the 10-gram level recommended by nutritionists for building muscle, and fails to achieve its desired nutrition purposes due to the products’ elevated sugar content. From the case:

“Many of these products actually lack the protein content to deliver what consumers are expecting, especially relative to their substantially higher sugar and carbohydrate content, which can militate against the benefits consumers are seeking to derive from protein.”

According to the complaint, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that snack foods labeled as “high,” “rich in,” or an “excellent source of” protein contain at least 20 percent of the recommended daily value. The lawsuit states that the recommended daily protein intake for adults is more than 50 grams. Tiger’s Milk bars allegedly contain six grams, or 12 percent of the recommended value, the case asserts.

According to the case, the defendants’ labeling of their products amounts to false advertising, as well as a deceptive and unfair trade practice in violation of the consumer protection laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The suit seeks to represent a class of anyone in the U.S. who bought a Tiger’s Milk bar during the applicable period, with a subclass for New York buyers.