The Bowmar Nutrition lawsuit is a federal class action filed in October 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, accusing the Ankeny, Iowa supplement company of selling protein powders, bars, nut spreads, and frostings that contain far less protein than their labels claim. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages and point to independent lab testing that allegedly found shortfalls of up to 67 percent.1Iowa Capital Dispatch. Ankeny Company Hit With $5 Million Lawsuit Alleging Consumer Fraud
What the Class Action Alleges
The case, Bass v. Bowmar Nutrition, LLC (Case No. 4:21-cv-00307), was brought by thirteen named plaintiffs from Texas, New Jersey, Florida, New York, and other states. It accuses the company of consumer fraud, deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment.2Truth in Advertising. Bass v. Bowmar Nutrition Second Amended Complaint
At the center of the complaint is testing that plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned from laboratories specializing in nutritional analysis. According to the complaint, the shortfalls ran across the product line:
- Protein powders labeled at 22 or 23 grams per serving tested between 10 and 67 percent lower than stated.2Truth in Advertising. Bass v. Bowmar Nutrition Second Amended Complaint
- Frostings came in up to 50 percent below their labeled protein values.2Truth in Advertising. Bass v. Bowmar Nutrition Second Amended Complaint
- Nut spreads tested about half of what labels advertised. A Halloween Egg Nut Spread marketed as containing 10 grams of protein per serving allegedly tested at roughly 6.6 grams.1Iowa Capital Dispatch. Ankeny Company Hit With $5 Million Lawsuit Alleging Consumer Fraud
The testing also reportedly found that actual calorie and saturated fat levels were higher than labels stated.3Top Class Actions. Bowmar Nutrition Lies About Protein Amount Protein Whey Supplements Class Action Lawsuit The plaintiffs argue those discrepancies violate federal regulations requiring fortified food products to contain protein in amounts at least equal to their label declarations.2Truth in Advertising. Bass v. Bowmar Nutrition Second Amended Complaint
Earlier Cases That Didn’t Survive
Two prior lawsuits raised similar allegations and both fell away before the Iowa case took shape. In April 2021, the Consumer Products Association filed a federal case in California alleging deceptive labeling. U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan dismissed it after ruling the association lacked legal standing to sue.1Iowa Capital Dispatch. Ankeny Company Hit With $5 Million Lawsuit Alleging Consumer Fraud A related California class action, Lozano v. Bowmar Nutrition (Case No. 2:21-cv-04296), was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation in October 2021, with each side bearing its own costs.4Truth in Advertising. Lozano v. Bowmar Nutrition Stipulation to Dismiss That left the Iowa case as the main litigation.
Where the Iowa Case Stands
Bowmar has scored early wins. In early 2022, a federal judge dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ claims. Some fell to two-to-three-year statutes of limitations. The unjust enrichment claims were deemed unsuitable for class treatment because they would have required individualized analysis of each consumer’s purchasing decisions. Jurisdictional problems knocked out others.5Des Moines Register. Ankeny Company Wins First Round in Court Fight Over Product Claims
The judge allowed the plaintiffs to refile, and they submitted a second amended complaint in February 2022. Bowmar’s attorneys moved to dismiss that version as well, arguing the plaintiffs could not claim they were deceived by product labels after acknowledging in their own suit that they had learned of the alleged misrepresentations after June 2020. The court had not ruled on that motion as of the most recent available reporting. No class has been certified, and no settlement fund has been established.6Iowa Capital Dispatch. Ankeny Company Wins First Round in Court Fight Over Product Claims Consumers looking to file a claim have nothing to file against yet.
The California Proposition 65 Settlement
A separate consumer-labeling matter has already resolved. In November 2023, Bowmar settled Parseghian v. Bowmar Nutrition, LLC, a California Proposition 65 claim alleging that the company’s Vegan Protein Peanut Butter Cookie exposed consumers to lead without the required health warning.7California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice 2023-00938
Under the out-of-court agreement, Bowmar paid $1,500 in civil penalties, split between the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the plaintiff, plus $18,500 to reimburse the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and investigation costs. The company also agreed to add Proposition 65 lead warnings to the product if it exposes consumers to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day, with specific requirements for physical packaging and for online sales shipping to California.8California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 Settlement Agreement 2023-00938 No consumer payout was part of the deal.
The Owners’ Separate Legal Matters
Two other cases involving founders Josh and Sarah Bowmar often come up alongside the nutrition lawsuit, but they are not part of it and would not produce any recovery for supplement buyers.
The Federal Wildlife Case
In October 2022, the Bowmars pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, a federal law barring the transport, sale, or acquisition of wildlife taken in violation of state or federal law. Four more serious charges, including allegations of hunting in baited areas, were dropped as part of the plea agreement.9CBS News. Josh and Sarah Bowmar Bowhunting YouTube Nebraska Poaching Case Sentencing The charges stemmed from hunts the couple conducted at Hidden Hills Outfitters near Broken Bow, Nebraska, between September 2015 and November 2017.10Nebraska Examiner. Hunters Convicted of Conspiracy Sue TV Station’s Owner for Defamation
On January 12, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson sentenced Josh Bowmar, Sarah Bowmar, and Bowmar Bowhunting LLC to three years of probation each, 40 hours of community service each, $75,000 in total fines payable to the Lacey Act Reward Account, $13,000 in restitution to the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, a $44,000 money judgment in lieu of forfeiture, and a ban on any hunting-related activity in the District of Nebraska for the length of their probation.11U.S. Department of Justice. Bowmar Bowhunting LLC and Owners Josh and Sarah Bowmar Sentenced for Conspiracy to Violate the Lacey Act
The Defamation Suit Against KCCI’s Owner
After the guilty plea, the Bowmars sued Hearst Properties, owner of Des Moines television station KCCI, for defamation and false light. They argued that KCCI’s description of them as having pleaded guilty in a “federal poaching case” was inaccurate because they had pleaded guilty only to conspiracy and the poaching charges themselves were dropped. They sought at least $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.12Iowa Capital Dispatch. Hunters Convicted of Conspiracy Sue TV Station’s Owner for Defamation The case was filed in Tennessee and later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Hearst moved to dismiss, calling its reporting “substantially true” against the signed plea agreements and the federal charges.10Nebraska Examiner. Hunters Convicted of Conspiracy Sue TV Station’s Owner for Defamation As of September 2023, the defamation case was still pending.