Creative Strategist

David Protein faces class action over caloric and fat labeling accuracy. The lawsuit alleges the actual fat and calorie content of its protein bars is higher than stated on the labels, and the company defends its labeling accuracy, citing methods for determining nutrient content for non-bioavailable ingredients, such as its fat substitute, EPG. Editor's Note: This article has been updated on March 23, 2026 at 5:05pm ET to include expert commentary. A class action lawsuit filed on January 23, 2026, in the US District Court for Southern New York alleges that Linus Technologies, Inc., doing business as David Protein, conducted unlawful labelling practices with its protein bars.[1] The complaint,, claims that the company's high-protein bars, including its Chocolate Chip Cookie, Cinnamon Roll, Fudge Brownie, Red Velvet, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk, Blueberry Pie, Pumpkin Spice, and Cake Batter flavored bars, contain substantially more calories and fat than stated on their Nutrition Facts Panels (NFP). The allegations: discrepancies in nutrient content. The plaintiffs, representing consumers from New York, California, and Illinois, contend that David Protein engaged in deceptive marketing by understating the caloric and fat content of its products to appeal to health-conscious buyers. According to the complaint, third-party laboratory testing using the Atwater factors and AOAC 945.44 methods revealed significant variances. The Atwater factors is one of 6 methods permitted by the Food and Drug Administration to determine caloric content in food, the lawsuit states, and the AOAC 945.44 is the official method for fat analysis. The variances found by these test methods include: * Caloric Content: Testing on the 8 products reportedly found calories to be 78% to 83% higher than labeled, with bars marketed at 150 calories actually containing between 263 and 275 calories. * Fat Content: The discrepancy in fat was more pronounced, with testing suggesting a 368% to 400% excess over labeled values. Products labeled with 2 to 2.5 grams of fat were found to contain between 11.76 and 13.52 grams. The lawsuit argues these findings exceed the FDA's 20% "safe-harbor" allowance for calorie overages, rendering the products misbranded and "adulterated" under federal and state law. David Protein's response: defending EPG and methodology. Key points of the company's rebuttal include: * Methodological Error: Rahal asserts that bomb calorimetry, the method used by the plaintiffs, is inappropriate for ingredients like EPG, dietary fiber, or certain sweeteners. Because these ingredients are not fully bioavailable, they do not yield their full caloric content when ingested, even if they release high heat when burned in a laboratory setting. * Regulatory Compliance: The company maintains that the FDA permits six different calorie calculation methods specifically to account for non-bioavailable ingredients. * Scientific Validation: David Protein cites FDA-reviewed Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) notices stating that EPG contributes only 0.7 kcal per gram, compared to the 9 kcal per gram found in conventional fats. Rahal added that it also contributes 0.08 grams of "fat" per gram of EPG. The letter also reiterated the company's commitment to innovative products with a high calorie-from-protein ratio. "Our bars feature a thoughtfully selected blend of milk protein isolate, collagen, whey protein concentrate, and egg white designed to optimize both taste and nutrition," .[3] "This mix achieves a perfect PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score) of 1.0 to optimally support both muscle-building and bodily functions (including skin, hair, and nail health)." Industry expert insights. The lawsuit raises questions on multiple topics in the functional food industry, including understanding the science of novel ingredients and appropriate testing methods for them. Food substitutes are not necessarily new to the industry. As food scientist Abbey Thiel, PhD, notes in an interview with Nutritional Outlook, others include the fat substitute Olestra and the sugar substitute allulose, which are both low in calories, similar to EPG. As a fat substitute, EPG is processed by the body differently than conventional fats. "EPG looks very similar to fat in foods, which is predominantly in the form of triglycerides," Thiel explains. "During digestion, our body has enzymes that act like little scissors and clip the fatty acids. This leads to 9 calories/gram of fat. EPG is structurally very similar to triglycerides, however, large propylene glycol units have been inserted. Our enzymes cannot cleave off the fatty acids, since these large propylene glycol units are in the way. This means we cannot really digest the EPG even though it looks like fat. Instead, since not much can be cleaved off, absorbed, and used by our body, it is only 0.7 calories/gram. EPG is nearly 0 calories because we don't really digest it." Additionally, testing methods for evaluating ingredients, especially modified ones, are not a "one size fits all" application. Blake Ebersole, Founder of Fearless Naturals USA and NaturPro Scientific LLC, explains how using standards, such as the AOAC 945.44 standard, for analyzing unconventional ingredients is more nuanced. "AOAC 945.44 is more 'old standard' than 'gold standard,'" Ebersole states in an interview with Nutritional Outlook. "Food analytical methods must be 'fit for purpose', and some methods don't fit some foods. It's important to remember that food science is like other scientific disciplines - older methods were the best we had at that time. The right framework for analysis of modified fats which defy conventional logic is usually a mix of compositional analysis, ingredient-specific metabolic data, and an FDA-compliant calorie factor under 21 CFR 101.9, and not just one number treated as holy scripture." This article was created with assistance from AI. The content has been reviewed and edited by Erin McEvoy, Associate Editor. For more information on the extent and nature of AI usage, please contact us. References

Defendants in a high-profile antitrust lawsuit alleging David Protein acquired alt-fat maker Epogee to “exclude competitors and create an artificial monopoly” have hit back in court papers filed Thursday.“What plaintiffs are trying to dress up as an antitrust monopolization suit is nothing but a case of bad business planning – failing to secure long term supply contracts for an ingredient that they now say is important to their food business,” argue defendants Linus Technology (trade name: David Protein), Peter Rahal (David cofounder), and Epogee (maker of a novel fat replacer EPG).The legal dispute began days after David announced the acquisition of Epogee when three food companies who said they could no longer access EPG cried foul, and filed suit in New York.Plaintiffs OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods alleged that David violated federal antitrust laws and New York’s Donnelly Act by “orchestrating the acquisition of Epogee through secretive and collusive conduct” and using its “resulting control over EPG to exclude competitors and create an artificial monopoly.”According to the complaint, “the plaintiffs and numerous other food manufacturers invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in R&D, manufacturing infrastructure, marketing campaigns, and product development specifically tailored to EPG [which looks and behaves like fat but contains a fraction of its calories], reasonably relying on Epogee’s encouragement and assurances of continued access.“These brands fundamentally restructured their entire business models around EPG as their core competitive advantage and ‘secret sauce’ ingredient, making EPG access essential to their survival.”‘Plaintiffs want the court to rescue them from a predicament they created for themselves’In a 30-page memo filed with the court Thursday, however, the defendants say they are “under no obligation” to sell EPG to the plaintiffs. “Epogee has four patents that cover the process for making EPG. It is black letter law that patent holders are not obligated to sell their product to third parties or to license third parties to practice the patent.”Meanwhile, there is an “abundance” of fats and fat substitutes on the market, add the defendants. “While they claim that they designed their product formulations and manufacturing processes around EPG as a central ingredient, they did not do what most businesses do, particularly when faced with a sole source of supply for a supposedly important ingredient or component – sign a contract.”Before it bought Epogee, note the defendants, David was a customer of Epogee. “But, unlike plaintiffs, David Protein negotiated a long-term supply agreement to ensure that EPG would be available to it for use in its David protein bars for many years to come. Other Epogee customers did the same thing