"complete nutrition" claims for supplements are obviously untrue, but GLP-1 related claims could live again

Cavallaro-Kearins v. Grüns Nutrition Inc., 2026 WL 1398422, No. 25-cv-4998 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2026)

The court dismissed this California & New York false advertising claim against Grüns based on its Superfood Greens Gummies for Adults and Grüns Cubs for Kids, challenging its claims to offer a “comprehensive” and “complete” solution for daily nutrition, to provide “100% of kids’ daily nutrition,” “all-in-one” support for GLP-1 users, and to act as a replacement for essential nutrients. In this specific context, these claims were unbelievable and demanded reference to the ingredient list, which would clarify matters. Grüns also advertised Grüns Adults as containing “more fiber than 2 cups of broccoli per pack,” the same amount as “9 cups of raw spinach,” and as containing more than 6 grams of fiber, stating that “you’d need a whole salad bar to match the fiber in just one pack of Grüns.” Grüns Kids also claimed it was the “very best way to get all the vitamins, minerals, fruits and veggies growing kids … need” and specifically targeted parents of children with sensory processing difficulties.

But protein, fats, and omega-3 fatty acids are necessary nutrients that aren’t included. Also, the Gummies “contain only minimal amounts of other key minerals like iron and lack others such as calcium altogether.” And the daily recommended amount of fiber for an adult is 28 grams of soluble and insoluble fiber per day, whereas Grüns contain only six grams of “soluble fiber”; the fiber contained in real fruits and vegetables is allegedly fundamentally different from that contained in Grüns, which “may aggravate rather than relieve the very conditions it claims to solve.” Grüns also claimed testosterone benefits that were allegedly misleading, as were claims to multiply, enhance, or substitute for protein. Without calcium or magnesium, the gummies were allegedly not even qualified as a standard multivitamin.

While these challenges (and others) are serious, the court focused on the “comprehensive nutrition” and similar claims. And because it’s obvious that you can’t get complete nutrition from gummies, those claims weren’t plausibly deceptive: combining puffery with ambiguity doctrine, a reasonable consumer would have had to look at the ingredients to figure out the actual nutrient profile:  

Plaintiffs do not contend that the language of the package should be taken literally—that the Gummies provide either complete or comprehensive nutrition such that a person who eats a pack of the Gummies need not eat anything else in order to survive. That is what the plain text read in isolation states. … Such a representation might be reasonably credited if made by a wellness resort or health food spa about the program it offers for visitors. When made by a purveyor of gummies, it is plainly hyperbolic, and no reasonable consumer could understand that a small packet of gummy bear supplements that weighs .7 ounces and that is advertised as a “Dietary Supplement” could replace the need to eat any other foods.

The court thus distinguished Weinstein v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 2024 WL 4250353 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), which found plausible misleadingness when the advertiser touted “complete multivitamin gummies” accompanied by the language that the product contained “B Vitamins” and “13 Essential Nutrients” but the product did not in fact contain Victims B1, B2, and B3. Likewise, Cabrera v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, 2019 WL 1146828 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019), held that the claim that a product was a “complete” multivitamin was plausibly misleading when the product was missing 13 vitamins that the body requires. In both cases, the adjective “complete” modified the noun “vitamin.”

Do reasonable consumers understand that, on gummies, “nutrition” literally means all the macro and micronutrients we need? Plaintiffs walked into this problem by talking about fats, protein, etc. They offered the argument that a reasonable consumer would understand that Gummies supply “all essential nutrients,” or “essential nutrients such as calcium and magnesium,” or “all other supplements,” or that the “Gummies provide what fruits and vegetables provide—the same nutrition, in another form.”

But, the court reasoned, if the term “comprehensive nutrition” is not understood by its dictionary definition, then it is ambiguous. [I’m more sympathetic to the “all essential [micro]nutrients” interpretation because that’s what you’d expect from a “comprehensive” supplement: one pill to take! At least I can imagine a substantial number of ordinary consumers thinking that.] And we know that, when there’s ambiguity, a reasonable consumer must consult the ingredient list (and apparently keep track of things like magnesium and iron being missing). I think this is an example of why “ambiguity” is troublesome: the court doesn’t ask whether a reasonable consumer could read the claim as unambiguous and not seek further information, but only whether there’s ambiguity in the abstract.

“No reasonable consumer could understand from the package as a whole that the Gummies contained ‘key macronutrients like protein and fat,’ that it contained adequate “amounts of critical nutrients like fiber and iron,’ or that it contained ‘calcium and omega-3 fatty acids,’ much less that it could ‘replace the nutritional complexity of fruits and vegetables and all other targeted supplementation.’”

As for the off-package claims, they mostly “parrot” the language of “comprehensive nutrition,” or use the adjective “comprehensive” “in an even less specific manner than on the packaging.” They could not save the claim.

What about the specific health issues touted? Some were mere puffery: “Gut health that fits in a lunchbox” and “#1 energy hack.” Grüns also advertises that the Gummies “help reduce colds by 70%,” result in “stronger hair in just 30 days,” and “boost T-levels,” but neither plaintiff alleged that she relied on those ads.

A subset of statements were plausibly misleading: those targeting GLP-1 users in particular. “Even if the advertisements could be understood to be ambiguous, there is no surrounding context that would dispel a reasonable consumer’s understanding that the Gummies contain the nutrients needed to fill gaps created by the medication.” However, plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead that use of GLP-1 medications creates specific nutritional gaps and that the Gummies do not in fact fill those gaps. It wasn’t enough to allege that the “formulation is not tailored to the specific needs of GLP-1 users and lacks the dosage strength, clinical targeting, or comprehensiveness to meaningfully address the deficiencies it invokes.” This part of the claim was dismissed without prejudice.