The EPG lawsuit is an antitrust case brought in June 2025 by three small food companies — Own Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods LLC, and Defiant Foods LLC — against David Protein, its parent Linus Technology, its newly acquired subsidiary Epogee LLC, and co-founder Peter Rahal. The plaintiffs allege that David bought the only maker of EPG, a low-calorie fat replacer their products depended on, and then cut them off, destroying their businesses. Filed in the Southern District of New York before Judge Victor Marrero as OWN Your Hunger LLC, et al. v. Linus Technology, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-04544), the case has survived an initial dismissal and is now waiting on a ruling that could end it for good or send it into discovery.1AgFunderNews. David Protein Lawsuit: Plaintiffs Home in on Calories From Protein
What EPG Is and Why the Cutoff Mattered
EPG, short for esterified propoxylated glycerol, is a plant-based oil engineered to mimic fat while carrying almost none of the calories. A gram of ordinary fat contains nine calories; a gram of EPG contains roughly 0.7. The molecule resists lipase, the enzyme that digests fat, so most of its energy passes through the body unabsorbed.2AgFunderNews. Protein Bar Maker David Acquires Novel Fat Maker Epogee, Raises $75M Series A Epogee LLC developed and patented the ingredient, holding four patents covering its production process.3AgFunderNews. David Fires Back in Epogee Lawsuit EPG received a “no questions” letter from the FDA through the GRAS notification process in 2015, clearing it for use in confectionery, baked goods, frozen desserts, snack bars, and sauces.4Food Navigator USA. Epogee Unveils a Fat Replacer at IFT Without Olestra’s Messy Side Effects
On May 29, 2025, David closed a $75 million Series A round and used most of the money to buy Epogee outright. Rahal called the deal “mission critical,” noting that David already accounted for roughly 90 percent of Epogee’s revenue and consumed all of its manufacturing capacity.2AgFunderNews. Protein Bar Maker David Acquires Novel Fat Maker Epogee, Raises $75M Series A The same day the acquisition closed, Epogee told its other customers it would no longer accept or fulfill new purchase orders for EPG.5The Antitrust Attorney. Protein Bars, Market Definition, and Injunctions
Who Sued and What Happened to Their Businesses
Four days after the cutoff, on June 2, 2025, the three plaintiffs filed suit. Each had built a product line around EPG. Defiant Foods, a bootstrapped chocolate company founded in 2021 by McKay and Leilani Fugal, designed its entire conching and tempering process around EPG’s melting and crystallization properties.6AgFunderNews. More EPG Customers Share Tales of Woe in David Protein Epogee Litigation The other two plaintiffs make low-calorie nut butter spreads and sauces.5The Antitrust Attorney. Protein Bars, Market Definition, and Injunctions
Between them, the three brands reported roughly $107,000 in lost sales, $449,000 in sunk R&D costs, and ongoing monthly losses of about $15,000 after the cutoff. Defiant paused production entirely and described itself in court filings as “moribund yet recoverable.” McKay Fugal told reporters that without EPG, “we don’t have a product, so David effectively put a lot of small businesses out.”7Modern Retail. A Lawsuit Over David Protein’s Acquisition of Epogee Is Threatening to Tear the CPG World Apart All three warned the court of “imminent permanent closure” from expiring leases, loss of skilled workers, and lapsing equipment maintenance.8AgFunderNews. EPG Showdown: Startups Warn of Imminent Permanent Closure
The Legal Claims
The plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and New York’s Donnelly Act. Their theory: David secretly acquired the sole supplier of a novel ingredient that competing brands had come to depend on, then cut them off, in what amounted to a coordinated scheme to monopolize what the complaint originally called the wellness food market.9The Fashion Law. David Protein Accused of Cutting Off Competitors in Market Monopoly Lawsuit They initially sought emergency injunctive relief to force David to keep selling EPG to outside companies.
David’s Defense
David has argued it holds a low-single-digit share of the protein bar market and therefore lacks monopoly power. As the owner of EPG’s patents, it says, it has no legal obligation to sell the ingredient to anyone, and patent holders are not required to license competitors. The company also told the court that an “abundance” of alternative fats and fat substitutes exists, undermining any claim that EPG is an essential facility.3AgFunderNews. David Fires Back in Epogee Lawsuit Rahal has said the plaintiffs “only have themselves to blame” for not signing long-term supply contracts with Epogee before the acquisition. He has stated that David would continue supplying EPG to customers with existing contracts predating the acquisition, though he declined to identify them.10Men’s Health. David Protein Bar Lawsuit
How the Court Has Ruled
The TRO Denial
On June 17, 2025, Judge Marrero denied the plaintiffs’ emergency request for a temporary restraining order. He found they had not shown a likelihood of success because they failed to “plausibly define the relevant product market.” The court noted the plaintiffs had not grappled with EPG being patented and had not explained why consumers would view their sauces, nut spreads, and chocolate as “reasonably interchangeable” with David’s protein bars.11The Fashion Law. TRO Denied in High-Stakes Ingredient Monopoly Case Against David Protein The judge also found the plaintiffs’ essential facility argument legally deficient at that stage.
Dismissal of the Original Complaint
In a 32-page order, Judge Marrero granted David’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court ruled the plaintiffs had not shown how David’s conduct harmed competition in any properly defined market, noting that denying them access to EPG did not amount to “reduced output in the economic sense.” The judge questioned the plaintiffs’ inconsistent market definitions, which toggled between “low-calorie indulgence foods” and the “global market for EPG supply.” The dismissal was not with prejudice; the court gave the plaintiffs 10 days to seek leave to amend.12AgFunderNews. David Protein Scores Initial Victory in Antitrust Case Over EPG Fat Replacer
The Third Amended Complaint
The plaintiffs took the opening. After securing permission to amend, they filed a third amended complaint in April 2026 that narrowed the proposed market to “High ‘Calories from Protein’ (‘CFP’) Protein Bars sold in the United States.” They added evidence drawn from the defendants’ own business documents and new allegations about price and physical differences between high-CFP bars and other protein bars.13Court Filings. OWN Your Hunger LLC v. Linus Technology Inc., Order Granting Leave to Amend
David responded on May 1, 2026, urging Judge Marrero to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice, meaning permanently. The company accused the plaintiffs of “semantic gamesmanship” and argued they still lacked antitrust standing.14AgFunderNews. Endgame Looms in EPG Antitrust Fight as David Protein Urges Judge to Toss Case for Good
What Happens Next
As of mid-2026, David’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is pending before Judge Marrero.15Lawsuits Journal. David Protein Bar Lawsuit Two outcomes are on the table. A dismissal with prejudice would end the lawsuit permanently. A denial would allow the case to proceed into discovery for the first time, opening David’s internal documents to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. A spokesperson for the plaintiffs said they “remain confident” in their case.12AgFunderNews. David Protein Scores Initial Victory in Antitrust Case Over EPG Fat Replacer
On the business side, David has expanded EPG manufacturing capacity fivefold since the acquisition. In a June 2026 interview, Rahal said the company is actively seeking commercial partners and “working on terms with people,” though no third-party supply agreements have been announced. Rahal called the litigation and the decision to sell EPG externally “separate things.”16AgFunderNews. David Protein Scales Alt Fat EPG Capacity, Eyes CPG Deals Defiant Foods, meanwhile, has begun returning to market with a reformulated high-protein dark chocolate called Defiant Shreds.17Defiant Chocolate. Defiant Chocolate
A Note on the Separate Calorie-Labeling Case
The EPG antitrust case is sometimes confused with a separate consumer class action over David’s nutrition labels. That case, Lopez et al. v. Linus Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-00635), was filed in January 2026 and alleged that lab testing found David’s bars contained 78 to 83 percent more calories and roughly 400 percent more fat than the label stated, based on bomb calorimetry.18NBC News. David Protein Bar Founder Lawsuit Over Calories David countered that bomb calorimetry is inappropriate for ingredients the body doesn’t fully digest and that its labels comply with FDA rules by measuring metabolizable energy.19ABC News. David Protein Bars Lawsuit: Founder Responds The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on March 30, 2026, with no public explanation.20CourtListener. Lopez v. Linus Technologies Inc., Docket Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the same claims could be refiled.