Christine Vitello v. Natrol, LLC, 50 F.4th 689

Background

Plaintiff Christine Vitello, diagnosed with ADD and prescribed Adderall for years, purchased Natrol’s dietary supplement Cognium after reading packaging claims that it improves memory and concentration and cites “nine clinical studies.”
Cognium packaging included two disclaimers: an FDA-required statement that the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease, and a warning to consult a healthcare professional if taking prescription drugs or having a medical condition.
Vitello stopped taking Adderall without consulting her physician and used Cognium as a substitute; she experienced no improvement and later learned two of the nine studies referenced on the box had been retracted for data problems.
Vitello filed a putative class action alleging MMPA violations (failure to disclose retracted studies) and unjust enrichment; Natrol issued a refund which Vitello refused to cash.
After initial denial of Natrol’s 12(b)(6) motion, the district court granted Natrol summary judgment on Vitello’s individual MMPA and unjust enrichment claims based largely on Vitello’s deposition admissions that she bought and used Cognium as an Adderall substitute despite the on-label disclaimers; dismissal of the named plaintiff ended the class claim.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Vitello could not show an MMPA “ascertainable loss” or that Natrol’s retention of payment was unjust under the circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vitello suffered an "ascertainable loss" under the MMPA from Natrol’s alleged failure to disclose two retracted studies	Vitello would not have purchased Cognium if she had known about the retractions and thus suffered a loss when Cognium failed to improve her cognition	Because Cognium’s label expressly stated it was not intended to treat disease and warned about consulting a physician when on prescription drugs, Vitello bargained for a supplement, not an Adderall substitute; any lack of effect is not a loss caused by Natrol’s nondisclosure	Affirmed: no ascertainable loss as a matter of law because Vitello bought and used Cognium for a purpose the label disclaimed, so product’s actual value equaled its represented value
Whether Natrol’s packaging disclaimers or Vitello’s post-purchase conduct preclude MMPA liability	Vitello argued causation and reliance questions are factual and disclaimers should not automatically defeat MMPA claims	Natrol relied on Vitello’s admissions that she knew the disclaimers and nevertheless used Cognium as an Adderall replacement	Affirmed: Vitello’s admissions showed she purchased/used Cognium for a benefit it did not represent, so disclaimer-related facts negated the required statutory loss element
Whether Vitello’s unjust enrichment claim survives	Vitello concedes she conferred payment to Natrol and seeks disgorgement	Natrol contends retention is not unjust because Vitello knowingly bought Cognium despite disclaimers and then refused the refund	Affirmed: enrichment at Vitello’s expense does not make retention unjust given her choice to use Cognium contrary to warnings (and refusal to accept refund)

Key Cases Cited

Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, 503 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. App. 2016) (elements of MMPA private right of action)
Sunset Pools of St. Louis, Inc. v. Schaefer, 869 S.W.2d 883 (Mo. App. 1994) (MMPA ascertainable loss incorporates benefit-of-the-bargain rule)
Thompson v. Allergan USA, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (product performed as represented; no benefit-of-the-bargain loss)
Plubell v. Merck & Co., 289 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. App. 2009) (limitations on MMPA recovery where product did what it represented)
Huch v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2009) (MMPA purpose and defenses discussion)
Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., 404 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2013) (application of contract principles consistent with MMPA)
In re Milk Prods. Antitrust Litig., 195 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 1999) (named-plaintiff must be able to represent class)