Tranont Lawsuit: Heavy Metals Claims, May 2025 Ruling, Prop 65

The Tranont lawsuit at the center of current attention is a federal product liability case in Utah, Rikki James, et al. v. iMoney Tools, LLC dba Tranont, in which six guardians allege that Tranont dietary supplements contained lead and mercury that injured twelve children. In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah denied Tranont’s motion to dismiss, and the case is now heading into discovery.¹

Who Filed the Case and What They Allege

The suit was filed in 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under case number 2:24-cv-00522-RJS-JCB. The named plaintiffs are Rikki James (on behalf of four minors), Priscilla Ambundo, Esther Gonzalez (on behalf of three minors), Aimee Lloyd, Cheyenne Ware, Mattie Allgyer, and Linda Allgyer. The defendant is iMoney Tools, LLC, the legal entity that operates the Tranont brand.²

The complaint says the children were exposed to lead and mercury in Tranont supplements either directly, by consuming the products, or through their mothers’ use during pregnancy and breastfeeding. The families allege the resulting harm included heavy metal toxicity, tooth decay, behavioral problems, severe pain, and long-term health decline.¹

Twenty products are named in the complaint, spanning most of Tranont’s supplement lineup. They include the Nourish GOS Prebiotic meal replacement shakes in Coconut Cream and Brownie Batter flavors, Glow Advanced collagen in Strawberry Banana and Orange Cream, the Mojo coffee line (Mojo, Mojo Coffee, Mojo Creamer), and supplements sold as Boost, TechnoBoost, Radiant, Restore, Vibe, Balance, Life, Suthe, and Serene, together with generic protein shakes and protein powder.¹

The Legal Claims Moving Forward

Four Utah-law claims are live in the case:

Strict liability for design defect under the Utah Product Liability Act, on the theory that the products were inherently dangerous because of their heavy metal content.
Strict liability for failure to warn under the same statute, alleging Tranont did not adequately alert consumers to the contamination risk.
Negligence in the manufacture and sale of the products.
Breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, alleging the supplements were unfit for ordinary use.

A fifth claim, for a manufacturing defect, was withdrawn by the plaintiffs before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss.¹

What the May 2025 Ruling Decided

On May 5, 2025, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby denied Tranont’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing all four claims to proceed.¹

Tranont had argued the complaint was too vague because it did not specify exact heavy metal concentrations, how much of each product each child consumed, or the scientific threshold at which the levels became unsafe. Judge Shelby treated those as technical matters for discovery and expert testimony rather than facts a plaintiff must plead upfront. The court found the families gave fair notice by alleging the products contained significant amounts of lead and mercury and that ingestion caused physical injuries.¹

On design defect, the court distinguished cases where plaintiffs merely allege the presence of a chemical without claiming actual harm. Here, Judge Shelby wrote, the families alleged that the “significant amount, not the mere presence” of heavy metals made the products unreasonably dangerous. The court also rejected Tranont’s argument that federal labeling rules preempted the state-law warranty claim, finding the case is about contamination rather than labeling.¹

With the motion denied, the parties will now exchange evidence, retain experts, and work toward trial or settlement. No trial date has been publicly set.

The Earlier California Proposition 65 Settlement

Before the federal case was filed, Tranont settled a California action over the same two contaminants. In September 2022, the Environmental Research Center (ERC) issued Proposition 65 notices of violation to iMoney Tools LLC, and in December 2022 sued in Alameda County Superior Court under case number 22CV023635.³

The California complaint targeted five specific products: Nourish GOS Prebiotic in Coconut Cream (lead) and Brownie Batter (lead), Tranont Boost (lead), and Glow Advanced Type 1 Collagen in Strawberry Banana (mercury) and Orange Cream (mercury).⁴

Tranont settled without admitting wrongdoing. The stipulated consent judgment, entered in May 2023, required the company to pay $95,000: a $32,750 civil penalty, roughly $34,000 in attorney fees and investigation costs, and a $24,476 additional settlement payment to fund ERC’s enforcement work. The judgment also permanently bars Tranont from selling the covered products in California if a consumer’s exposure exceeds 0.5 micrograms of lead or 0.3 micrograms of mercury per day, unless the product carries a compliant Proposition 65 warning. The warning must be boxed and prominently displayed, and for online sales to California addresses it must appear directly on the checkout page rather than behind a hyperlink. Tranont must also have three randomly selected samples of each product independently lab-tested each year for at least five consecutive years and retain the results for five years.⁴

The federal court in the 2025 ruling referred to the California consent judgment as context for identifying the products at issue, while noting it is not by itself proof that the products actually contain harmful heavy metal levels.¹

Related Federal and Self-Regulatory Actions

The heavy metals litigation is separate from earlier regulatory pressure on Tranont, but the two threads are often mentioned together. On April 24, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission sent Tranont a warning letter citing unsubstantiated claims by company representatives that plant-based supplements, including TechnoBoost and Restore, could help fight COVID-19. The same letter flagged social media posts suggesting participants could earn $600 a month, $10,000 a month, or over $1 million a year through the business opportunity, without disclosing typical earnings or losses. The FTC required Tranont to stop the claims, report corrective steps within 48 hours, and monitor its salesforce for compliance. No formal FTC enforcement action following the letter has been publicly reported.⁵

The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council, run by BBB National Programs, has also opened inquiries into Tranont salesforce posts making unsubstantiated health and income claims. A 2022 inquiry (Case No. 75-2022) reviewed 34 posts and resulted in 33 removals and one modification.⁶ A follow-up inquiry closed on May 8, 2025 (Case No. 214-2025) reviewed 11 more posts, all of which Tranont took down.⁷ In both inquiries, Tranont said the claims were unauthorized and pointed to compliance training and external monitoring.

These regulatory matters are not part of the pending federal lawsuit and do not decide it. The lead and mercury allegations at the heart of James v. iMoney Tools will now be tested through discovery in the Utah federal court.

1
GovInfo. Rikki James et al. v. iMoney Tools LLC dba Tranont, Case No. 2:24-cv-00522-RJS-JCB
2
PACER Monitor. James et al. v. iMoney Tools LLC, Amended Complaint
3
California Office of the Attorney General. Proposition 65 Notice, AG Number 2022-02035
4
California Office of the Attorney General. Prop 65 Consent Judgment, Environmental Research Center v. IMoney Tools LLC
5
Federal Trade Commission. COVID-19 Warning Letter to Tranont
6
BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case No. 75-2022, Tranont Administrative Closing
7
BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case #214-2025, Tranont