David Protein Nutrition Lawsuit: EPG Calories, Dismissal, Antitrust

The David Protein lawsuit was a proposed class action filed in January 2026 alleging the brand’s bars contained roughly 263 to 275 calories and 11 to 13.5 grams of fat, well above the 150 calories and 2 grams of fat printed on the label. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case on March 30, 2026, without giving a public reason, and without prejudice, meaning it could technically be refiled. As of mid-2026, it has not been.

Who Sued and What They Claimed

Three consumers — Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson — filed the complaint on January 23, 2026 against Linus Technologies, Inc., which does business as David Protein. The case was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as Lopez et al. v. Linus Technologies, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00635, with attorney Jason Sultzer representing the plaintiffs.1ClassAction.org. David Protein Complaint2CourtListener. Lopez v. Linus Technologies, Inc.

The 46-page complaint targeted eight flavors: Chocolate Chip Cookie, Cinnamon Roll, Fudge Brownie, Red Velvet, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chunk, Blueberry Pie, Pumpkin Spice, and Cake Batter.3ClassAction.org. David Protein Bars Contain More Calories and Fat Than Advertised, Class Action Alleges It relied on independent testing performed at Anresco Laboratories, an FDA-accredited facility, which used Atwater factors and the AOAC 945.44 method.4NBC News. David Protein Bar Founder Lawsuit Calories

Against label values of 150 calories and 2 grams of fat, the lab results cited in the complaint reported:

The plaintiffs argued the gaps far exceeded the FDA’s 20 percent tolerance for nutrition label accuracy and amounted to misbranding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.5Nutritional Outlook. David Protein Faces Class Action Over Caloric and Fat Labeling Accuracy They also brought claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, and several California statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law.3ClassAction.org. David Protein Bars Contain More Calories and Fat Than Advertised, Class Action Alleges

The proposed class covered anyone in the United States who bought David Protein products for personal use within the applicable statute of limitations. The suit sought damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and a jury trial, arguing that consumers paid a premium for products they would not have bought had the labels been accurate.1ClassAction.org. David Protein Complaint

The EPG Calorie Dispute at the Heart of the Case

The whole dispute turned on a single ingredient: esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG. It’s a plant-based fat substitute that mimics the texture of fat but largely resists digestion. According to FDA GRAS notices, 70 to 80 percent of ingested EPG passes through the body undigested.6FDA. GRAS Notice 000583 – Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol Under conventional chemistry it holds the 9 calories per gram of any fat, but the body absorbs closer to 0.7 calories per gram of it.7Nutritional Outlook. Novel Ingredients in Functional Foods

The plaintiffs’ testing counted EPG as regular fat at 9 calories per gram, using bomb calorimetry and the century-old Atwater factors (4 calories per gram for protein and carbohydrates, 9 for fat) that are the standard basis for nutrition labels.1ClassAction.org. David Protein Complaint David Protein counted it at 0.7 calories per gram based on absorption, and excluded it from the total fat count.8Delish. David Protein Founder Response Lawsuit

Federal regulations under 21 CFR 101.9 allow alternative calorie factors for ingredients metabolized atypically, which is what David relied on. But industry observers noted that EPG’s status as a reduced-calorie ingredient for labeling isn’t as clearly established as it is for olestra, which has an explicit FDA regulation, or allulose, which went through a formal guidance process. A GRAS “no comment” letter addresses safety, not calorie labeling.7Nutritional Outlook. Novel Ingredients in Functional Foods

Atwater factors can also overshoot in the other direction on real foods. USDA research found the general factors overstate the metabolizable energy in whole almonds by 32 percent, because the food’s structure prevents full digestion.9PMC. Measuring Dietary Energy That doesn’t resolve the EPG question, but it shows why competing methods can produce very different numbers for the same product.

How David Protein Responded

Peter Rahal, the company’s founder and a co-creator of RXBar, pushed back hard. On March 11, 2026, he posted on X, “No one is getting Regina Georged,” referencing the diet-bar subplot in Mean Girls that had already surfaced on social media.4NBC News. David Protein Bar Founder Lawsuit Calories The next day, he issued a longer statement calling the lawsuit “simply wrong” and “meritless” and said the company would “vigorously defend” its labeling.8Delish. David Protein Founder Response Lawsuit

Rahal’s argument was that bomb calorimetry measures total energy released when food is burned, not what the body absorbs, and that the 4-4-9 Atwater factors are the wrong tool for ingredients like EPG, dietary fiber, and some sweeteners. He pointed to FDA-recognized GRAS notices identifying EPG as contributing roughly 0.7 calories per gram and about 0.08 grams of “fat” per gram of EPG.8Delish. David Protein Founder Response Lawsuit “David is 150 calories,” he maintained, and the company said it was in full compliance with FDA regulations.10NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped

Why the Case Was Dismissed

On March 30, 2026, roughly two months after filing, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. No reason was given publicly. USA Today reported that the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.11USA Today. David Protein Bar Lawsuit Calories Fat Dismissed A dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of refiling; a settlement, a strategic retreat, or a decision to strengthen the complaint are all consistent with that posture, and the court record doesn’t say which applies here.12U.S. News. Lawsuit Over Viral David Protein Bars Dropped Without Explanation

David issued a short statement the next day: “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.”10NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped

The Separate Antitrust Lawsuit

The calorie case is often confused with a second, unrelated lawsuit that is still active. In May 2025, David announced a $75 million Series A round and its acquisition of Epogee LLC, the sole manufacturer of EPG. Two days later, Epogee told existing customers it would no longer accept new orders and was winding down their accounts.13Food Business News. David Faces Lawsuit After Acquiring Epogee14Food Navigator USA. Snack Bar Brand David Raises $75 Million to Acquire Food Tech Startup

On June 2, 2025, three competing food startups — Own Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods — sued David, Epogee, and Rahal in the Southern District of New York for unlawful monopolization (Own Your Hunger LLC et al. v. Linus Technology, Inc. et al., No. 1:25-cv-04544), arguing the acquisition and supply cutoff had locked them out of the high-protein, low-calorie bar market.15Modern Retail. A Lawsuit Over David Protein’s Acquisition of Epogee

In February 2026, Judge Victor Marrero granted David’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding they had failed to adequately define the relevant market or show harm to competition.16Wolters Kluwer. Own Your Hunger LLC v. Linus Technology Inc. He later gave them leave to amend. A third amended complaint now defines the relevant market as “high-calories from protein” protein bars (those deriving 50 to 75 percent of calories from protein) and claims that without EPG, competitors can’t reach that threshold. The plaintiffs claim $449,000 in wasted research and development, $107,000 in lost sales, and over $85,000 in written-off inventory.17AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home In on Calories From Protein

David has said competitors held no long-term supply contracts with Epogee and that alternative ingredients exist. Rahal has said the company plans to reopen EPG supply to third parties once manufacturing capacity catches up with demand, potentially in 2026, with David retaining supply priority.17AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home In on Calories From Protein18Men’s Health. David Protein Bar Lawsuit

Where Things Stand Now

The calorie labeling lawsuit remains dismissed without prejudice, and no new consumer labeling case has been filed against David Protein since. The antitrust case is ongoing, with the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint pending before Judge Marrero.17AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home In on Calories From Protein No FDA enforcement action has been announced against the company over its labeling or over EPG’s caloric classification.12U.S. News. Lawsuit Over Viral David Protein Bars Dropped Without Explanation