CASE NAME: Rodriguez v. Olly Public Benefit Corporation
CASE NO.: 3:26-cv-02034-RBM-SBC
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
FILED ON: March 31, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All California citizens who purchased Olly Metabolism Gummy Rings within four years prior to the filing of the complaint, excluding those claiming personal injury.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, Olly Public Benefit Corporation is accused of misleading consumers by marketing its “Metabolism Gummy Rings” as apple cider vinegar (ACV) supplements that support metabolism and contain beneficial components such as “the mother.” The lawsuit alleges that the products do not contain sufficient acetic acid—the active ingredient in ACV—to deliver the advertised benefits and that the manufacturing process destroys any beneficial bacteria associated with “the mother.” As a result, the plaintiff claims consumers paid a premium for products that are essentially sugar-based gummies lacking the promised health benefits.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Olly prominently markets its Metabolism Gummy Rings with statements such as “Supports Metabolism & Lean Body Mass,” “Apple Cider Vinegar,” and “Made with ACV with the Mother,” alongside imagery of apples and references to metabolic health. According to the complaint, these representations lead reasonable consumers to believe the products provide the recognized benefits of apple cider vinegar, including weight management and metabolic support.

However, the plaintiff contends that independent laboratory testing shows the gummies contain only approximately 2.6% acetic acid—well below the 4% threshold typically required for a product to qualify as apple cider vinegar. The complaint further alleges that each gummy contains only about 7.8 mg of acetic acid, which is a fraction of the amount found in a standard tablespoon of liquid ACV and insufficient to produce meaningful health effects.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the manufacturing process used to create gummy supplements involves heating and dehydration stages that destroy the beneficial enzymes and bacteria known as “the mother.” According to the complaint, even if the original ingredients included ACV with the mother, these beneficial components would not survive production, rendering the labeling misleading.

The plaintiff also alleges that the gummies are composed largely of sugar—approximately 50% by weight—which contradicts the product’s purported metabolic benefits. Instead of promoting weight management, the complaint asserts that such sugar content may contribute to weight gain and metabolic issues.

The lawsuit further claims that consumers, including the plaintiff, relied on the product’s labeling and marketing when making purchasing decisions. The plaintiff states he paid between $15 and $20 per bottle and would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had he known the true composition and lack of benefits.

Based on these allegations, the complaint brings claims under California consumer protection laws, including unfair and unlawful business practices, deceptive advertising, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. It also alleges breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a statewide class, restitution, damages, injunctive relief to prevent continued misleading marketing, and other equitable remedies. The lawsuit emphasizes that consumers are unable to independently verify supplement contents and must rely on labeling, making accurate representations critical in the dietary supplement market.