Case Information

Case Name

ROYA MIR V. BEYOND BETTER FOODS, LLC

Case No.

2:26-at-01263

Jurisdiction

United States District Court Eastern District of California

Filed On

07/28/26

Class Definition

The proposed class consists of all persons in the United States who purchased Beyond Better Foods’ Bada Bean Bada Boom Plant-Based Protein Crunchy Roasted Broad (Fava) Bean Snacks during the applicable limitations period.

Summary

According to the complaint, Beyond Better Foods, LLC is accused of misleading consumers about the amount and quality of protein in its Bada Bean Bada Boom fava bean snack products. The lawsuit alleges that the company prominently advertises “6g” of “Plant-Based Protein” per serving on the front of the package and in online listings, while the Nutrition Facts Panel lists a “12%” daily value for protein that is not properly adjusted for protein quality as required by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

Because fava bean protein allegedly has a lower protein quality score, the corrected, digestible protein content is said to be significantly less than advertised, meaning consumers supposedly received fewer usable grams of protein and a lower true protein percent daily value than they were led to believe. The plaintiff claims that, as a result, she and similarly situated consumers paid a price premium and would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the products if the labels had accurately reflected the corrected protein content.

Allegations

The lawsuit alleges that Beyond Better Foods formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Bada Bean Bada Boom Plant-Based Protein Crunchy Roasted Broad (Fava) Bean Snacks nationwide, marketing them to consumers who are specifically interested in protein intake. The complaint states that the company drives sales by highlighting “6g” of “Plant-Based Protein” per serving on the front label and in online marketing, such as on Amazon, to create the impression that the products provide a meaningful amount of protein. At the same time, the Nutrition Facts Panel allegedly lists a “12%” daily value for protein that is based on total grams of protein rather than the “corrected amount of protein per serving” required under FDA rules.

According to the complaint, FDA regulations require manufacturers who make protein content claims on the front of a package to perform two key steps:

1. Calculate the corrected amount of protein per serving using the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) method, which takes into account both the amino acid composition and digestibility of the protein source.
2. Disclose the resulting corrected protein as a percent daily value on the Nutrition Facts Panel, immediately adjacent to the gram amount of protein.

The lawsuit asserts that these requirements exist because different protein sources vary in nutritional quality, and consumers generally are not able to evaluate protein usability or accurately determine their daily protein needs on their own.

The complaint alleges that the sole protein source in the Bada Bean Bada Boom products is fava beans and that published research places fava beans’ PDCAAS at approximately 0.67. Based on this factor, the complaint contends that a serving advertised as containing 6 grams of protein would actually provide only about 4 grams of usable, quality-adjusted protein. This corrected amount would allegedly translate to a true protein percent daily value of roughly 5–8%, rather than the 12% daily value disclosed on the packaging. The lawsuit claims that by failing to apply PDCAAS and by listing an inflated 12% daily value, Beyond Better Foods violated FDA regulations and California’s Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, rendering the products misbranded and their labeling unlawful.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, alleges that she purchased the Bada Bean Bada Boom products, including a “Boom Box” variety pack from Amazon, after reviewing both the package and the Amazon product page. She claims that she relied on the “6g” protein claim on the front and the “12%” daily value in the Nutrition Facts Panel to meet her dietary protein needs. According to the complaint, she regularly compares percent daily values of protein across different products and selected the defendant’s snacks because they appeared to offer a higher contribution toward her daily protein requirements. The lawsuit alleges that if the corrected protein content and accurate percent daily value had been properly disclosed in compliance with federal and state law, she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less.

More broadly, the complaint asserts that reasonable consumers expect that stated grams of protein and the associated percent daily value on food labels refer to protein that their bodies can actually use. It further claims that consumers generally lack specialized knowledge about amino acid profiles, digestibility scores, and PDCAAS calculations, and therefore cannot independently verify protein quality at the point of sale. The lawsuit alleges that Beyond Better Foods’ labeling and marketing practices were likely to deceive reasonable consumers into believing the snacks provided more usable protein than they actually do, thereby inducing them to pay a price premium.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all purchasers of the Bada Bean Bada Boom fava bean snacks during the applicable limitations period. The complaint requests:

• Class certification
• Restitution of amounts allegedly overpaid
• Actual and statutory damages
• Injunctive relief requiring Beyond Better Foods to stop or correct the challenged labeling and advertising practices
• An award of attorneys’ fees and costs