The class action accusing David protein bars of hiding calories and fat behind an inaccurate label was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on March 30, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The David Protein lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means the same plaintiffs could refile the same claims later. Neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys explained publicly why they dropped the case, and no settlement was announced.1USA Today. David Protein Bar Lawsuit Calories Fat Dismissed2U.S. News & World Report. Lawsuit Over Viral David Protein Bars Dropped Without Explanation
What the Lawsuit Claimed
The case, Lopez et al. v. Linus Technologies, Inc. (No. 1:26-cv-00635), was filed on January 23, 2026, by three named plaintiffs: Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson. They were represented by Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC, and sought class-action status on behalf of everyone who bought the bars based on their nutrition claims.3ClassAction.org. David Protein Bars Contain More Calories and Fat Than Advertised, Class Action Alleges4PACER Monitor. Lopez et al v Linus Technologies, Inc
David bars are sold with front-of-package claims of 150 calories, 28 grams of protein, zero sugar, and roughly 2 to 2.5 grams of fat per serving. The plaintiffs paid Anresco Laboratories, an accredited testing facility, to analyze the bars. According to the complaint, Anresco found 263 to 275 calories per serving and 11 to 13.5 grams of fat, roughly 80% more calories and 400% more fat than the label showed.5NBC News. David Protein Bar Founder Lawsuit Calories6Nutritional Outlook. David Protein Faces Class Action Over Caloric and Fat Labeling Accuracy
The complaint alleged violations of several state consumer protection laws (the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, New York General Business Law, and California false advertising and unfair competition statutes) as well as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA labeling regulations. Plaintiffs sought damages, restitution, and an injunction against continued use of the labels.7ClassAction.org. David Protein Complaint
Why the Calorie Numbers Were Disputed
The disagreement turned on a single ingredient: esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG. EPG is a modified plant-based oil that looks like fat chemically but largely resists digestive enzymes, so most of it passes through the body without being absorbed. Standard fat delivers 9 calories per gram; David Protein says EPG contributes only about 0.7 calories per gram.8Nutritional Outlook. Novel Ingredients in Functional Foods9NutraIngredients USA. David Protein Calorie Label Lawsuit Response
The plaintiffs’ lab used Atwater general factors and the AOAC 945.44 fat method, which measure the food’s total chemical energy. CEO Peter Rahal called that approach “bomb calorimetry” and said it was the wrong tool for a product built around EPG, because it counts energy the body never absorbs. The company’s position was that its label already reflected metabolically available calories, so the 20% tolerance the FDA applies to labeled values was not a meaningful benchmark here.10ABC News. David Protein Bars Lawsuit Founder Cult Favorite Product9NutraIngredients USA. David Protein Calorie Label Lawsuit Response
The FDA does allow manufacturers to pick from six calorie calculation methods under 21 C.F.R. § 101.9, and the rule acknowledges that some ingredients aren’t metabolized like standard macronutrients. But the FDA’s GRAS review of EPG addressed safety, not labeling, and the agency has not issued the kind of explicit labeling guidance it produced for olestra and allulose. One food scientist quoted in trade coverage called the traditional testing methods “not fit for purpose” for novel ingredients like EPG. No regulatory agency announced an enforcement action tied to the dispute.8Nutritional Outlook. Novel Ingredients in Functional Foods
What the Dismissal Means
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice ends the case without a ruling on who was right. There was no judgment, no finding that the label was accurate, and no finding that it wasn’t. The plaintiffs kept the option to bring the same claims again later.2U.S. News & World Report. Lawsuit Over Viral David Protein Bars Dropped Without Explanation
USA Today reported that the plaintiffs’ attorneys did not respond to a request for comment, and no public reason for the withdrawal was given. David Protein’s post-dismissal statement said the matter had been “resolved,” which left open whether any private agreement was reached, but no settlement was confirmed on the record.1USA Today. David Protein Bar Lawsuit Calories Fat Dismissed11NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped
How the Company Responded
Rahal pushed back on the suit publicly from the start. He called it “frivolous” and said flatly, “David is 150 calories.” On X, he wrote that “no one is getting Regina George’d,” a reference to the Mean Girls character tricked into eating high-calorie bars that had circulated on TikTok during the controversy.11NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped
After the dismissal, the company said: “We are pleased this matter has been resolved and look forward to continuing to focus on our customers and our business. We remain confident in the accuracy of our nutrition labeling.”11NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped
A Separate Antitrust Case Is Still Live
The dismissal covers only the labeling class action. David Protein is still facing a different federal lawsuit in the same court, brought by three competing food startups (OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods) in June 2025. That case challenges David’s May 2025 acquisition of Epogee, the sole worldwide manufacturer of EPG, and alleges that David cut off competitors’ access to the ingredient.12Food Business News. David Faces Lawsuit After Acquiring Epogee
Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the competitors’ second amended complaint on February 4, 2026, finding they had not adequately defined the relevant product market. On March 17, 2026, he gave them 21 days to try again. By mid-2026, the plaintiffs had filed a third amended complaint defining the market as “high calories-from-protein protein bars” sold in the United States (bars where 50 to 75% of calories come from protein), alleging David holds 100% of that segment and uses EPG to command price premiums of 44 to 171% over competitors. David has maintained it has no duty to supply EPG to companies without long-term contracts and that alternatives exist.13CCH. Own Your Hunger LLC v Linus Technology Inc, March 2026 Order14AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home In on Calories From Protein in Final Bid To Make Antitrust Case