In re: GNC Corp. v.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10351
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (consumers) purchased GNC and Rite Aid joint‑health supplements containing glucosamine and chondroitin and sued under various state consumer‑protection statutes claiming the products do not deliver the advertised joint‑health benefits.
- The Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) relied on multiple published clinical studies (mostly on osteoarthritis patients) to allege that the "vast weight" of evidence shows glucosamine, chondroitin, and some other ingredients are no more effective than placebo.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead falsity; the district court granted dismissal without prejudice, inviting amendment only if plaintiffs could allege that "any reasonable expert" would conclude the ingredients are ineffective.
- Plaintiffs filed a Rule 60 motion after appeal and the district court reiterated its reasons; plaintiffs failed to file a timely separate notice of appeal from that order, so the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal of the Rule 60 order for lack of jurisdiction.
- On de novo review the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the CAC, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead literal falsity because the CAC conceded that some reasonable experts disagree (i.e., the scientific evidence is equivocal), and also failed to allege that all ingredients in each product are ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded that product claims are literally false | GNC/Rite Aid labels claim products "promote joint health" but studies show glucosamine/chondroitin are ineffective, so statements are false | Labels are not literally false if reasonable experts support the claims; scientific evidence is equivocal | Dismissed: plaintiff must allege that all reasonable experts would conclude the claims are false; conceding reasonable dissent defeats a literal‑falsity claim |
| Whether pleadings may survive where scientific literature is mixed (battle of experts) | Court should not resolve expert disputes at pleading stage; cited studies suffice to make claim plausible | If any reasonable experts support the advertising, the claim is not literally false; pleading must allege lack of any reasonable expert support | Held that a plaintiff who admits reasonable expert disagreement cannot plead literal falsity; no battle of experts resolution needed to dismiss |
| Whether failure to plead inefficacy of all product ingredients is fatal | Plaintiffs focused on glucosamine/chondroitin (and some other ingredients) and argued overall product claims are false | Products contain additional ingredients (herbs, MSM, HA, fish oil); plaintiffs did not allege those ingredients are ineffective | Dismissed as to products whose full formulations were not alleged to be ineffective; alternate ground for affirmance |
| Jurisdiction over appeal of district court's Rule 60 order | Plaintiffs argued it would be unfair to require separate notice of appeal from post‑judgment order | Defendants pointed to appellate rules requiring timely separate notice or tolling by timely post‑judgment motion | Held: appeal of Rule 60 order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiffs filed Rule 60 too late to toll and did not file separate timely notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int'l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 2015) (pleading standard on motion to dismiss)
- Summers v. Altarum Inst., Corp., 740 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Twombly pleading requirements)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (Lanham Act standing and false/misleading framework)
- Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing literal falsity from misleading claims and requirement of extrinsic evidence for confusion)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping role for scientific expert reliability)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice of appeal confers jurisdiction)
- Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993) (dismissal with prejudice doctrine where amendment would be futile)