The Epogee lawsuit is a June 2025 federal antitrust case in which three small food companies accused David Protein, its founder Peter Rahal, and the ingredient maker Epogee of monopolizing the market for a patented low-calorie fat replacer called EPG. The plaintiffs said David bought its sole supplier and then cut off every other buyer. So far, the court has sided with David, denying an emergency order and dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Who Sued and What They Alleged
The complaint was filed on June 2, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as OWN Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods LLC v. Linus Technology, Inc., Epogee LLC, and Peter Rahal, Case No. 1:25-cv-04544. The three plaintiffs were Defiant Foods, a Utah high-protein chocolate bar maker; OWN Your Hunger, a Calgary nut butter brand; and Lighten Up Foods, a Nashville sauce maker. All three had built product lines around EPG.1AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home in on Calories From Protein in Final Bid to Make Antitrust Case
Their core legal theory was unlawful monopolization under federal antitrust law. They argued that David executed a vertical acquisition of the sole supplier of a patented ingredient, then refused to sell that ingredient to downstream competitors, effectively locking them out of the market. They also called it a “bait-and-switch”: David relied on Epogee as an open supplier, bought the company, and cut everyone else off.1AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home in on Calories From Protein in Final Bid to Make Antitrust Case They asked for an injunction requiring David to resume selling EPG to qualified food manufacturers.2Modern Retail. A Lawsuit Over David Protein’s Acquisition of Epogee Is Threatening to Tear the CPG World Apart
The three plaintiffs reported roughly $107,000 in lost confirmed sales, about $449,000 in sunk research and development costs, more than $85,000 in written-off packaging and inventory, and roughly $15,000 per month in ongoing overhead losses while production sat frozen.3Food Business News. David Faces Lawsuit After Acquiring Epogee Ten other former Epogee customers later filed declarations describing similar damage. Moon Magic said it had spent more than $750,000 building a Chilliwack, British Columbia production facility for EPG-based products. Snack Owl discontinued its low-calorie kettle chips and discarded $70,000 in unusable materials. Legion Foods was shutting down. Bricks Protein, which had secured commitments from major retailers, called the loss of EPG “devastating.”4AgFunder News. More EPG Customers Share Tales of Woe in David Protein Epogee Litigation
The Acquisition That Triggered the Case
On May 29, 2025, David Protein announced a $75 million Series A funding round led by Greenoaks, with participation from Valor Equity Partners, and the acquisition of Epogee on the same day.5BusinessWire. David Closes $75 Million Series A Funding Round The bulk of the capital went to the Epogee purchase. Rahal called securing EPG “mission critical” and said David already accounted for roughly 90% of Epogee’s revenue.6AgFunder News. Protein Bar Maker David Acquires Novel Fat Maker Epogee On Instagram, the company said the move was “about control.”2Modern Retail. A Lawsuit Over David Protein’s Acquisition of Epogee Is Threatening to Tear the CPG World Apart
The same day, Epogee told its other customers it would no longer accept new orders and was winding down their accounts.3Food Business News. David Faces Lawsuit After Acquiring Epogee The lawsuit followed four days later.
Why EPG Was at the Center
Esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG, is a plant-based fat substitute. Conventional fat carries about 9 calories per gram; EPG carries roughly 0.7. The molecule is structured so that digestive enzymes cannot break it down efficiently, so it passes through the body largely unabsorbed.7FDA. GRAS Notice 000583 — Esterified Propoxylated Glycerol Food makers can swap most of the fat in a product for EPG and sharply cut calories without losing texture. Epogee held FDA Generally Recognized as Safe status and 20 patents on the ingredient.8Epogee. Epogee Fat Revolution White Paper
The plaintiffs argued EPG was irreplaceable for the kind of high-protein, low-calorie products they were building, because conventional fats carry roughly 13 times more calories per gram. That gap, they said, made David’s control of the supply an insurmountable barrier to entry.1AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home in on Calories From Protein in Final Bid to Make Antitrust Case
How David Protein Defended the Case
David’s defense ran on three tracks. On the refusal-to-deal question, the company argued it had no legal obligation to sell a patented ingredient to competitors, particularly ones who had never secured long-term supply contracts. Its filings said the plaintiffs were “solely responsible for their predicament because they failed to secure long-term supply contracts.”9The Antitrust Attorney. Protein Bars Market Definition and Injunctions Rahal said David would continue to honor contracts that predated the acquisition, though he declined to name which customers held them.10Men’s Health. David Protein Bar Lawsuit
On market definition, David called the plaintiffs’ framing “semantic gamesmanship.” Consumers shop for protein bars generally, the company argued, and don’t distinguish products by whether they contain EPG. Its lawyers also pressed the point that the plaintiffs sold sauces, nut spreads, and chocolates, and asked how those could be “reasonably interchangeable” with a protein bar in a single market.11AgFunder News. David Protein Scores Initial Victory in Antitrust Case Over EPG Fat Replacer
On substitutability, David maintained EPG was not truly irreplaceable, pointing to other fats and fat substitutes. And it said it needed all available EPG for itself, with demand at times running 120% to 150% of Epogee’s manufacturing capacity.12AgFunder News. David Protein Scales Alt-Fat EPG Capacity, Eyes CPG Deals
What the Court Has Ruled
Temporary Restraining Order Denied
The plaintiffs moved fast for a temporary restraining order that would have forced David to keep selling EPG to existing customers during litigation. On June 17, 2025, Judge Victor Marrero denied the request in a 12-page order, finding the plaintiffs had “not demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits.”13AgFunder News. Setback for Plaintiffs in David Protein Epogee Lawsuit as Judge Refuses to Grant Temporary Restraining Order
The judge focused on two weaknesses. First, the plaintiffs had not plausibly defined the relevant product market. Their complaint called it the “United States market for EPG supply,” and at oral argument they shifted to “the market for low-calorie indulgence foods”; neither persuaded the court. Second, the judge noted the plaintiffs had not grappled with the fact that EPG is patented, which complicates any argument that its owner must share it.14The Fashion Law. TRO Denied in High-Stakes Ingredient Monopoly Case Against David Protein
Amended Complaints and Dismissal
The plaintiffs did not appeal. They amended. Across at least three tries they reworked the market definition, eventually landing on “high-calories from protein (CFP) protein bars,” defined as bars where 50% to 75% of calories come from protein. Under that framing, they said David held 100% market share and charged 44% to 171% premiums over competing bars.1AgFunder News. David Protein Lawsuit Plaintiffs Home in on Calories From Protein in Final Bid to Make Antitrust Case
On February 4, 2026, the court granted David’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.15Wolters Kluwer. OWN Your Hunger LLC v. Linus Technology Inc. Judge Marrero wrote that the plaintiffs had not shown David’s conduct harmed competition in any recognizable market, and that the loss of access to EPG as purchasers “does not constitute reduced output in the economic sense.”11AgFunder News. David Protein Scores Initial Victory in Antitrust Case Over EPG Fat Replacer The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend once more and filed a third amended complaint. David then moved to dismiss with prejudice.16AgFunder News. Endgame Looms in EPG Antitrust Fight as David Protein Urges Judge to Toss Case for Good
Why the Antitrust Theory Was a Hard Sell
The case ran into settled doctrine. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a firm generally has the right to choose its business partners, even if it holds a monopoly. The Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Verizon Communications v. Trinko placed refusal-to-deal claims at “or near the outer boundary” of antitrust liability and warned that forcing companies to share assets risks discouraging investment. No plaintiff has successfully won a refusal-to-deal case under the standard set by Trinko.17Yale Law Journal. The Antitrust Duty to Deal in the Age of Big Tech
The FTC’s guidance recognizes narrow scenarios where a monopolist’s refusal to deal can be anticompetitive, such as ending a prior course of dealing without a legitimate reason. But the same guidance says firms generally have “no duty to deal with competitors.”18FTC. Refusal to Deal The patent status of EPG added a further layer: courts have been reluctant to force patent holders to license or sell to rivals, out of concern about chilling innovation.
The plaintiffs also leaned on the “essential facilities” doctrine, which can require a monopolist to share an asset competitors cannot practically duplicate. That doctrine has largely fallen out of favor in U.S. courts, has been called “harmful and unnecessary” in leading treatises, and has never been successfully applied to intellectual property in the United States.19George Mason Law & Economics Center. Essential Facilities Doctrine and Its Application in Intellectual Property Space Judge Marrero found the plaintiffs’ essential-facility argument “legally deficient” at the TRO stage.14The Fashion Law. TRO Denied in High-Stakes Ingredient Monopoly Case Against David Protein
Where the Case Stands
After the February 2026 dismissal and the plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, David moved to have the case thrown out for good. A ruling on that motion was expected in the summer of 2026.16AgFunder News. Endgame Looms in EPG Antitrust Fight as David Protein Urges Judge to Toss Case for Good David has kept expanding through the litigation, entering Target, Walmart, and Costco in Texas, projecting revenues above $300 million for 2026, and scaling EPG production five-fold after going out of stock in the summer of 2025. As of mid-2026, David had not sold EPG to any third party since acquiring Epogee.12AgFunder News. David Protein Scales Alt-Fat EPG Capacity, Eyes CPG Deals Several of the small brands that once relied on EPG have reported shutting down operations or abandoning product lines while the case has moved through the court.
A Separate Calorie-Label Lawsuit
A different case is sometimes confused with the Epogee antitrust suit. In January 2026, a class action alleged that independent lab testing showed David bars contained 268 to 275 calories per serving and 11 to 13.5 grams of fat, rather than the 150 calories and 2 grams of fat stated on the label, and that the discrepancy violated the FDA’s 20% tolerance.20NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Calories David called the suit “frivolous,” arguing the plaintiffs used bomb calorimetry, which measures total combustion energy and doesn’t reflect that EPG passes through the body largely undigested; the relevant measure, the company said, was “metabolizable energy.”21Nutrition Insight. David Protein Calorie Label Lawsuit Response The class action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in late March 2026, meaning the claims could theoretically be refiled. No settlement was announced.22NBC News. Lawsuit David Protein Bars Dropped That dispute is separate from the antitrust case over Epogee.