Since 2020, an OWYN lawsuit has been filed roughly once a year, and the cases fall into three groups: lead contamination in the plant-based protein products, protein content that allegedly fell short of the label, and a “zero sugar” marketing claim on the Pro Elite shakes. The lead track has produced the most concrete results, including a $200,000 Prop 65 settlement in 2021 and a quiet class action settlement in late 2025. The protein-content case was dismissed with prejudice in March 2025. The sugar case remains open on the docket.
The 2021 Lead Settlement Under Prop 65
OWYN’s first significant legal exposure came from California’s Proposition 65. In January 2020, the Environmental Research Center filed a notice of violation against Halen Brands and Only What You Need covering nine OWYN products — protein bars, ready-to-drink shakes, and powders in flavors including Dark Chocolate, Smooth Vanilla, Cold Brew Coffee, and Strawberry Banana. All nine were flagged for lead; one also for cadmium. A March 2020 notice added three more products, including a Cookies n’ Cream shake and a Turmeric Golden Mylk drink.1Environmental Research Center. ERC Settlement With OWYN
ERC filed a civil complaint in July 2020 alleging failure to warn consumers. The case settled on March 19, 2021. OWYN paid $200,000 in civil penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs, and agreed to a permanent injunction barring sales in California of products that expose consumers to more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day or 4.1 micrograms of cadmium per day unless a Prop 65 warning is provided.1Environmental Research Center. ERC Settlement With OWYN The 0.5-microgram figure matches California’s maximum allowable dose level for lead’s reproductive toxicity.2Consumer Reports. Protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead
The 2025 Lead Class Action
Four years after the Prop 65 settlement, a new lead complaint arrived. In July 2025, Allison Barton filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California — Barton v. Only What You Need, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01849-BAS-KSC. According to the complaint, an accredited laboratory tested OWYN’s chocolate Plant Protein Powder and found 0.5976 micrograms of lead per serving, above California’s 0.5-microgram Prop 65 safe harbor.3ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Claims OWYN Plant Protein Powder Contains Lead
Barton argued that OWYN marketed the powder as “PRO ELITE” and “high quality protein,” pushing digestive and immune benefits, without disclosing lead. She sought to represent California purchasers of the chocolate powder over the prior four years who did not claim personal injury. The legal claims covered California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, plus breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.4ClassAction.org. Barton v. Only What You Need Inc. Complaint
The case moved fast. After several jointly requested extensions, the parties filed a notice of settlement on December 17, 2025, followed by a voluntary dismissal on January 26, 2026. The docket is closed.5CourtListener. Barton v. Only What You Need Inc. Docket Settlement terms were not made public.
A Separate 2025 Prop 65 Notice
Running in parallel to the Barton case, a different enforcer targeted a different OWYN product. On March 23, 2025, Clean Product Advocates, LLC filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue with the California Attorney General. The named parties were OWYN SPV, LLC; Simply Good Foods USA, Inc., OWYN’s parent; and Sprouts Farmers Market as a retailer. The product was “Owyn 30 Plant Protein” (UPC 850043711612), and the chemical was lead.6California Office of the Attorney General. Prop 65 60-Day Notice 2025-00944
Under Prop 65, that 60-day notice is a prerequisite to a private suit. Public records do not confirm whether the notice progressed to a filed lawsuit, a warning-label agreement, or another resolution.7California Office of the Attorney General. Prop 65 60-Day Notice 2025-00944
Protein Content Lawsuits
Lead is not the only labeling issue OWYN has been sued over. In September 2024, Latanya Ri’Chard filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California — Ri’Chard v. Only What You Need, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01051-KES-SKO. The shakes were labeled “20g of Protein” per serving, but independent lab testing cited in the complaint found about 17.5 grams, a shortfall of roughly 12.5%.8InjuryClaims.com. OWYN Protein Shake False Advertising Lawsuit The complaint invoked California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus breach of express and implied warranty.9ClassAction.org. OWYN Non-Dairy Protein Shakes Contain Less Protein Than Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
The case ended quickly. On March 4, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and the court closed the case the next day.10Leagle. Ri’chard v. Only What You Need Inc. Dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claims. Whether money changed hands privately is not part of the public record.
A separate case filed the same month, O’Neal v. OWYN, took a different angle. Rather than alleging a raw shortfall, O’Neal challenged OWYN’s calculation method, arguing the company used a nitrogen-based measurement without providing the PDCAAS-adjusted Daily Value that FDA regulations require on labels.11NutraIngredients. Three Recently Filed Lawsuits Highlight Legal Risk in Protein Labeling Compliance The current status of that case is not confirmed in available records.
The “Zero Sugar” Case Against Pro Elite Shakes
The oldest still-unresolved OWYN case targets marketing rather than contents. Filed July 19, 2022, Brand v. Only What You Need, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01052, alleges that the Pro Elite High Protein Shakes were advertised as containing “0g sugar” despite having a calorie count that buyers would not expect from a truly sugar-free product.12ClassAction.org. Class Action: Zero Sugar Pro Elite Protein Shakes Contain More Calories Than Buyers Led to Expect As of early 2026, no settlement or dismissal has been publicly reported.
Why Plant-Based Protein Brands Keep Getting Sued Over Lead
OWYN’s lead cases are part of a wider pattern. A Consumer Reports investigation published in October 2025 tested 23 protein powders and shakes and found that more than two-thirds exceeded safety thresholds for lead. Plant-based products averaged lead levels roughly nine times higher than whey-based ones.2Consumer Reports. Protein Powders and Shakes Contain High Levels of Lead A Clean Label Project study reported by CNN in January 2025 found that 47% of 160 best-selling protein powders exceeded California’s Prop 65 heavy-metals guidelines, with chocolate powders containing four times more lead than vanilla and pea, rice, or soy proteins containing three times more than whey.13CNN. Protein Powder Heavy Metals Wellness
The reason is agricultural: plants absorb lead and cadmium from soil, and contamination varies with industrial pollution, farming practices, and regional soil quality. There are no specific federal limits on heavy metals in adult dietary supplements, which leaves California’s Prop 65 as the most active enforcement lever and explains why nearly every lead-related OWYN lawsuit has been filed in California courts or under California statutes.13CNN. Protein Powder Heavy Metals Wellness