CASE NAME: Ruchman v. Raw Nutrition, Inc.
CASE NO.: 2:26-cv-04163-CV-RAO
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Central District of California
FILED ON: April 7, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All consumers in California who purchased Raw Isolate Protein shakes within the applicable statutory period.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint , the plaintiff alleges that Raw Nutrition, Inc. falsely advertised its Raw Isolate Protein shakes as containing 30 grams of protein per serving when, in reality, the products allegedly contain less protein than stated. The lawsuit claims that accurate protein labeling is critical for consumers who track their nutritional intake for fitness and health goals. The plaintiff contends that he and other consumers relied on the labeling and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, had they known the true protein content.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Raw Nutrition manufactures, markets, and sells a line of protein shakes labeled as containing 30 grams of protein per serving across multiple flavors, including chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, cookies and cream, salted caramel, and mocha latte. As shown in the product image on page 5 of the complaint, both the front label and Nutrition Facts panel prominently display the “30 grams of protein” claim.

According to the complaint, this representation is false and misleading. The plaintiff alleges that independent laboratory testing conducted in December 2025 found that the actual protein content in the products falls short of the labeled amount. The results, summarized in a table on page 6 of the complaint, indicate that the products contain between approximately 26.4 and 28.0 grams of protein per serving—representing a shortfall of roughly 7% to 12% compared to the advertised 30 grams.

The complaint further explains that the protein in the shakes is derived primarily from processed ingredients such as milk protein isolate and calcium caseinate. These ingredients are refined and added during manufacturing, and the lawsuit asserts that under federal regulations applicable to such processed foods, the actual nutrient content must meet or exceed the amount declared on the label. The plaintiff alleges that any shortfall in protein content therefore violates these labeling requirements.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, claims that he regularly purchases protein supplements to meet dietary and fitness goals, including maintaining weight and building muscle. According to the complaint, he relied on the product’s labeling when purchasing the chocolate-flavored shake in January 2026 from a retail store. The lawsuit alleges that consumers like the plaintiff depend on accurate nutritional labeling because they cannot independently verify protein content through inspection or consumption.

The complaint alleges that Raw Nutrition’s labeling and marketing practices are deceptive because they misrepresent the actual protein content of the products. It further claims that this misrepresentation allowed the company to charge a price premium compared to similar products or what consumers would have been willing to pay if the true protein content were disclosed.

On behalf of a proposed class of California consumers, the plaintiff brings claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant’s conduct constitutes unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Specifically, the lawsuit requests that the court order the defendant to stop using allegedly misleading protein content claims and to correct its labeling and advertising practices. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief the court deems appropriate.

At the center of the case is whether a measurable discrepancy between labeled and actual protein content constitutes a material misrepresentation that would mislead reasonable consumers. The lawsuit emphasizes the importance of accurate nutritional labeling for consumers who rely on such information to make informed dietary choices.

Tell us what you think about this complaint.