The Holmes Nutrition lawsuit was a federal class action filed in March 2025 alleging that the brand’s protein powder contained a small fraction of the protein listed on its label, and it ended in February 2026 when the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice. The suit, Holmes v. The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and never reached a ruling on the merits.1PACER Monitor. Holmes v. The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC
What the Lab Testing Allegedly Found
The complaint centered on a stark gap between the label and reported lab results. The product label stated 22 grams of protein and 4 grams of carbohydrates per serving. Independent testing referenced in reporting on the case indicated 3.4 grams of protein and 21 grams of carbohydrates, essentially flipping the advertised nutrition profile.2NDSU Spectrum. The Protein Industry Scam Critics in fitness communities called the product “cake batter sold as protein powder.” The laboratory that ran the tests and its methodology were not publicly identified in available reporting.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Plaintiff Damead Holmes filed the 59-page complaint on March 12, 2025, under case number 2:25-cv-00442, bringing it as a class action on behalf of consumers who purchased the products.1PACER Monitor. Holmes v. The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC Beyond the protein discrepancy itself, the complaint reportedly accused the company of “amino spiking,” a practice in which cheap amino acids like taurine or glycine are added to inflate the nitrogen-based tests used to measure protein, producing a misleading number for consumers. The complaint also challenged marketing language like “premium,” “pure,” and “high-performance” as unsubstantiated and used to justify higher prices.
The legal theories included violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The core injury alleged was economic: consumers paid a premium for something that did not match what they were promised. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that even a modest overcharge on a single tub adds up to significant systematic harm across a large customer base.
Who Was Actually Sued
The named defendant was not Holmes Nutrition itself but The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC, a Henderson, Nevada entity that also does business as ArdyssLife, a multi-level marketing company founded in 1990.3BBB National Programs. DSSRC – ArdyssLife Court filings identified that company as the manufacturing partner behind the Holmes Nutrition brand, which is how the two ended up tied together in the case. The matter was assigned to Judge Gloria M. Navarro, with Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe handling discovery.4Law360. Holmes v. The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC
How the Case Ended
On February 20, 2026, the plaintiff filed a joint stipulation to dismiss. Judge Navarro signed the dismissal order three days later, on February 23, 2026, dismissing the case without prejudice.1PACER Monitor. Holmes v. The Reshaping and Nutritional Company LLC A dismissal without prejudice is not a ruling on who was right; the claims could, in theory, be refiled later. Court records do not indicate whether the parties reached a private settlement, and no settlement terms have been made public. The stipulation was joint, meaning both sides agreed to end the litigation, but the reasons are not visible on the public docket.
Where Holmes Nutrition Stands Now
As of early 2026, Holmes Nutrition appeared to be in transition. The company’s website said it was experiencing manufacturing delays, and many products had been pulled from the online store. A message told customers the company was “still diligently working on vetting new manufacturers” and would email once protein products returned.5Comfy Chaos Education. Should You Trust a Supplement Site With No Privacy Policy – A Holmes Nutrition Case Study The site suggested it might be taken down, without a firm timeline. Observers also noted the site lacked both a Terms of Service and a Privacy Policy as of January 2026.
How This Case Fits the Broader Protein Labeling Fight
The Holmes Nutrition case sits inside a wave of class actions over protein supplement labeling going back to the mid-2010s. Amino spiking has been a recurring target. Iovate Health Sciences paid $2.5 million in 2016 to settle claims that it misled consumers by double-counting amino acids in its MuscleTech protein powders.6Forbes. Lawsuits Say Protein Powders Lack Protein, Ripping Off Athletes Cytosport, the maker of Muscle Milk, agreed to a $12 million settlement in 2020 over allegations of overstating protein and understating fat.7Bloomberg Law. Muscle Milk $12 Million False Ad Settlement Gets Final Approval Those cases generally survived early challenges based on federal preemption, with courts holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not block state-law claims that a label is false or misleading. Under FDA rules, a dietary ingredient specifically added to a product must be present at 100% of the amount declared on the label, and a product falling short is considered misbranded.8U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide – Chapter IV Nutrition Labeling The Holmes Nutrition case ended before any court weighed the evidence, so the label-versus-lab dispute at its center was never resolved on the record.