Issue 2 (September 7, 2026)

Protein is everywhere nowadays. This issue of Plate Tectonics breaks down four emerging theories plaintiffs are using to attack protein claims and offers practical guidance for CEOs and General Counsel navigating this shifting landscape.

Americans love protein. Hyde Park Capital projects the U.S. high-protein market will nearly double from roughly $55 billion (2025) to $105 billion (2032), with 57% of consumers checking labels for protein content. Food companies are meeting this demand, reformulating products to increase protein grams, and displaying those grams on the front panel.

Litigators love frail protein claims. One thing we've learned over the past 15 years is that responding to consumers' health/wellness demands can be risky. When consumers demanded natural products, food companies responded with reformulated products and "natural" marketing claims. But nutritionists expressed skepticism and class-action litigators pounced. That pattern repeated with "real" and other marketing claims. No surprise, then, that protein's heyday brings scrutiny.

Competitors are now challenging protein claims. The number of protein-based complaints has been rising since 2021. But this past June brought a new type of protein complaint with a new theory of consumer deception. Class action cases have rightfully received most of the attention in this space. But Danone revived the competitor false-advertising challenge under the Lanham Act when it sued Chobani, alleging that Chobani's "20G Protein" multi-serve tubs actually deliver only 18 grams per serving. Chobani's 20G claim requires a ¾-cup (190-gram) serving. But the FDA's Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC)—a horribly clunky FDA term for the amount of each type of food that consumers actually eat—is only about ⅔ cup (170 grams) for yogurt. FDA requires claims comparing the nutrient content of two products to be based off the RACC to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison. Otherwise, a food manufacturer could simply inflate the size of its serving to mislead consumers into believing that its product is as nutrient dense as its competitor's. And that is the core of Danone's complaint here.

Competitor complaints spawn class-action complaints. The day after Danone filed its complaint, a class action complaint was filed relying on the same arithmetic. Two more complaints followed. By August 19, all three were consolidated before the same judge. Perhaps this follow-on effect was part of Danone's plan, as the class actions will apply added financial pressure to Chobani's protein claims.

Currently, there are four ways litigators attack protein claims.

You might be giving consumers the protein they are asking for. But be careful how you tell them so.

Protein claims will keep drawing fire from class-action plaintiffs' firms and possibly from competitors. If your portfolio includes protein claims, stress-test them against the theories below.

The complaint in Danone US, LLC v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-05037 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 15, 2026) alleges that Chobani's failure to follow FDA's serving-size regulations results in consumer deception. Chobani's 32-ounce "20G Protein" tubs declare a serving of ¾ cup (190 grams), but the yogurt RACC is only 170 grams (21 C.F.R. § 101.12, revised in 2016). Under §§ 101.9(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(5)(i), the proper serving for a nondiscrete bulk product like yogurt is the cup increment that most closely approximates the RACC, here ⅔ cup. According to the complaint, the metric equivalent of ⅔ cup is 168.9 grams, at which Chobani's yogurt delivers only 17.78 grams of protein (declarable as 18), overstating the label claim by 2 grams per serving.

The complaint targets only the multi-serve format. Danone expressly concedes that Chobani's 6.7-ounce single-serve cup is lawful, because a container under 200% of the RACC is a single serving whose contents define the serving size. The multi-serve format, by contrast, leaves manufacturers what the 1993 preamble called "relatively little discretion," a regime FDA adopted so that nutrition claims "were the result of the characteristics of the food and not of manipulation of the serving size."

Danone frames this as a "regulatory-hook" Lanham Act claim: rather than challenging a claim's facial truth, it identifies a specific FDA regulation and argues that the defendant's label was derived through a calculation that violates the rule. The approach creates a ready-made template for follow-on consumer class actions, and that is exactly what happened. The day after Danone filed, a consumer class action followed; two more complaints joined, and on August 19, Judge Koeltl consolidated all three as In re Chobani Serving Size Litigation.

Danone bolsters its damages theory with a consumer survey allegedly showing that 66.6% of protein-focused yogurt buyers assumed both brands calculate per-serving protein from the same standardized serving, and by demonstrating that the inflated serving size lets Chobani compete with Danone's premium-priced Oikos Pro (23 grams) even though Chobani's product is only as protein-dense as Danone's lower-priced Triple Zero (17 grams).

Even if Danone withdraws or settles tomorrow, Chobani's exposure persists. The consolidated consumer class actions have their own damages to chase.

Not all protein is created equal. The body absorbs different protein sources at different rates, and FDA captures that difference through a metric called the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS). A score of 1.00 means the body uses virtually all of the protein consumed; 0.00 means it uses almost none. The gap between sources is dramatic:

A product built on a low-scoring source can declare an impressive gram count on the front of the package while delivering materially less usable protein than a dairy-based competitor. FDA's labeling rules account for this. Under § 101.9(c)(7), manufacturers may calculate protein grams by the nitrogen method, a straightforward chemistry test that measures total protein regardless of quality. But § 101.9(c)(7)(i) adds a critical guardrail: once a protein claim appears anywhere outside the Nutrition Facts panel, the manufacturer must also display a PDCAAS-corrected % Daily Value inside the panel. That corrected figure gives consumers a quality-adjusted number alongside the raw gram count.

The Ninth Circuit confirmed this framework in Nacarino v. Kashi Co., 77 F.4th 1201 (9th Cir. 2023). Nitrogen-based gram claims aren’t inherently misleading, and state-law challenges to the gram count itself are preempted, so long as the corrected %DV appears in the panel. The surviving theory is narrow but actionable: a front-of-pack protein claim paired with a missing or wrong %DV.

Ruchman v. Raw Sport Supplement Co., LLC, No. 5:26-cv-01695 (C.D. Cal.; amended complaint April 16, 2026), is the cleanest example. Lab testing showed the "30G Protein" Raw Nutrition shakes delivering only 26.4–28.0 grams, shortfalls of 7–12%.

The most significant move in the complaint is the Class I classification argument. FDA's compliance rules draw a sharp line between two categories of nutrients. Class II nutrients, those that occur naturally in the food, enjoy a 20% cushion: the product need only deliver 80% of the declared label value (§ 101.9(g)(4)(ii)). Class I nutrients, those that are added during manufacturing, get no cushion at all: the product must deliver at least 100% of the declared value (§ 101.9(g)(4)(i)). Critically, under § 101.9(g)(3)(ii), when a manufacturer adds an external source of a nutrient, the entire amount of that nutrient in the finished product (indigenous plus added) is subject to Class I requirements. Because Raw Nutrition's protein comes from added isolates, the plaintiff argues the shakes are Class I foods, and the 7–12% shortfall is a violation, not a rounding error. Any company adding protein isolates to hit a front-label number should assume plaintiffs will make the same argument.

Caldera v. Laird Superfood, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01955 (C.D. Cal., removed Feb. 24, 2026; remanded to L.A. County Superior Court, No. 26STCV02688), tests an entirely different angle: the product name itself is the deceptive act. The complaint targets Laird Protein Bars (six flavors) and Picky Protein Bars (two flavors). The Chocolate Mint Protein Bar contains 22 grams of carbohydrate (including 8 grams of sugar), 7 grams of fat, and only 10 grams of protein, just 7.5 grams after PDCAAS correction. By calories: 88 from carbohydrate, 63 from fat, and 40 from protein (PDCAAS adjusts for protein quality, not caloric value), meaning only 21% of the bar’s calories come from protein. Plaintiff’s point is blunt: this is a sugar bar masquerading as a protein bar.

The complaint does not plead this as a nutrient-content-claim case. Instead, it treats "protein" in the product name as a statement of identity under 21 C.F.R. § 101.3, a representation that protein is the defining macronutrient. That framing brings in additional regulatory hooks: § 101.18(b) (misleading use of a characterizing ingredient in a product name), § 102.5(b) (front-label percentage disclosure when the characterizing component is not predominant), and FDA’s fortification policy under § 104.20(a). The fortification policy discourages adding nutrients to snack-type foods because doing so “could mislead consumers to believe that substitution of naturally nutrient dense foods with fortified snack foods would ensure a nutritionally adequate diet.” The identity-claim framing sidesteps preemption under the PDCAAS trigger provision (§ 101.9(c)(7)(i)). Caldera does not challenge the accuracy of a gram count; it argues the product name creates a net impression — “this is a protein product” — that is independently false because protein is not the predominant macronutrient.

A similar complaint, Perez v. GoMacro, LLC, No. 5:25-cv-09890-PCP (N.D. Cal.), attacked GoMacro’s MacroBars on the same theory: "protein bars" and "high protein" labeling on products that are mostly carbs and fat. That case is now in Monterey County Superior Court.