CASE NAME: Barrales v. Quest Nutrition, LLC
CASE NO. (Not yet assigned)
JURISDICTION: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – Central District
FILED ON: March 11, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in California who, within the applicable class period, purchased any of the identified Quest protein shakes or milkshakes for personal or household use and not for resale.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, Quest Nutrition, LLC is facing a proposed class action alleging that several of its ready-to-drink protein shakes and milkshakes expose consumers to levels of lead that exceed California’s Proposition 65 safe harbor limit without providing the legally required warning. The lawsuit claims that independent laboratory testing found that the products contain lead at levels above the maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of 0.5 micrograms per day for reproductive toxicity. Plaintiff alleges that, despite this exposure, the products’ labels fail to include a “clear and reasonable” warning as mandated by California law. As a result, consumers were allegedly misled into purchasing products they otherwise would not have bought or would have paid less for, leading to economic injury.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Quest manufactures and sells a range of protein beverages, including flavors such as vanilla, chocolate, salted caramel, coffee, and strawberry, which are widely marketed to consumers seeking convenient nutrition options. According to the complaint, these products were tested by an independent, ISO-accredited laboratory in November 2025, and the results purportedly showed that consumption of the products can expose users to lead levels exceeding California’s established safe harbor threshold.

Under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as Proposition 65, businesses are required to provide a clear and reasonable warning before exposing individuals to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, including lead. The complaint states that the maximum allowable daily level for lead exposure is 0.5 micrograms, and that consuming the defendant’s products as directed can result in exposures above this limit.

Despite this, the plaintiff alleges that none of the products include the warning required under Proposition 65. The law specifies that such warnings must clearly inform consumers of the presence of listed chemicals and the associated risks, typically through specific language and a recognizable warning symbol. The complaint contends that Quest failed to include any such disclosure, thereby depriving consumers of material information necessary to make informed purchasing decisions.

The plaintiff, a California resident, claims she purchased Quest protein milkshakes on multiple occasions between approximately 2023 and 2025. She alleges that she relied on the product labeling, including the absence of any Proposition 65 warning, in deciding to purchase the products. According to the complaint, had she known that consuming the products would expose her to lead at levels exceeding the state’s safety threshold, she would not have purchased them or would have paid less.

The lawsuit further alleges that Quest’s omission allowed it to charge a price premium and gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace over products that either comply with Proposition 65 or do not contain comparable levels of lead. The plaintiff contends that consumers suffered economic harm because the products were worth less than the price paid due to the undisclosed risk.

On behalf of the proposed class, the plaintiff brings claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging that Quest’s conduct was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent. The complaint also includes a cause of action under Proposition 65, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks an order requiring Quest to provide appropriate warnings, cease the alleged violations, and potentially recall or relabel affected products. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief.

The plaintiff also alleges that Quest was notified of the alleged violations through a 60-day notice of intent to sue, as required under Proposition 65, but failed to take corrective action. As a result, the lawsuit claims that the alleged violations are ongoing and continue to pose a risk to California consumers.