prefacing statements with "allegedly" or calling them "estimates" doesn't make them nonfalsifiable opinion

V Shred, LLC v. Kramer, 2026 WL 895614, No. 2:25-cv-01341-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2026)

V Shred is a health and wellness company specializing in “online exercise training programs, exercise apparel, and nutritional supplements.”

Kramer is a social media influencer with millions of followers who promotes “online exercise training programs, exercise apparel, and nutritional supplements” and allegedly directly competes with V Shred.

V Shred sued for Lanham Act false advertising, alleging among other things that Kramer uses the catch phrase “Fuck V Shred” on his social media profiles as “a discount code consumers can use” for products promoted by Kramer.

The court found that the complaint alleged some provably false statements, while others weren’t identified specifically enough (though the court granted leave to amend).

As to a video titled “Mini Golf With V Shred in Las Vegas,” it was not enough to allege that this was false because V Shred was not present or in any way associated with the video. “Here, there was no unauthorized use of an image, but rather there was merely a tagline reference to V Shred. The leap from using a tagline to arguing that it equates to promoting the defendant’s products is not plausible. Here, as alleged, there were no products offered for sale and V Shred was not even discussed in the video.” Dismissed with prejudice.

As to an appearance on the “TSL Time” podcast, Kramer allegedly falsely stated “the company of V Shred isn’t owned by a health and wellness company. It’s owned by a marketing agency. Just a bunch of marketing dudes”; he also allegedly stated that V Shred “is a ‘cancer,’ ” “sells ‘crash diets,’ ” that “[principal] Sant is an ‘actor’ who ‘doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talk about,’ ” and that he plans to “knock the legs out from under [V Shred] because they are a garbage company.”  He also allegedly falsely stated that V Shred has “1,200 or 1,300 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau this past year alone.”

Kramer argued that his statements about ownership were nonfalsifiable opinion, and that his claims about the BBB complaints were an estimate “based on memory.” The court found that both statements were falsifiable, and because he allegedly promoted his own products instead, they could be a commercial advertisement. The “estimate” defense “is essentially an admission that the BBB statements were indeed demonstrably false.”

Finally, Kramer allegedly posted a video stating that “they only pay their coaches $9 per client.” V Shred alleged this statement was false because they pay their coaches different amounts for different types of plans. The qualifier “allegedly” did not save this statement from falsifiability. This was also plausibly an ad; Kramer spent 58 of the 93-second video criticizing V Shred before promoting his own company and attempting to recruit customers, including that he will pay his coaches “double the market standard.”