Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith, 3:16-cv-00704

Background

Youngevity sued Wakaya and individual defendants under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act alleging multiple categories of false advertising (FAC subparts A–H), including income claims for distributors, founder/ownership statements about David Gilmour, origin and ingredient claims (curcumin content), product safety/health claims, pyramid-scheme allegations, and weight-loss claims.
Wakaya moved for summary judgment as to the entire first cause of action; Youngevity moved for summary judgment on subpart G (curcumin content) and to exclude rebuttal expert Dr. Joshua Plant.
The parties submitted competing expert reports and test data about curcumin percentages in Wakaya turmeric (Microbac results claimed ~5.96%; plaintiffs’ experts reported lower values ~2.45%–3.10%).
The court applied Ninth Circuit Lanham Act standards (five-element test) and standard Rule 56 and Daubert/Kumho gatekeeping principles for expert testimony.
The court denied summary judgment for Wakaya on subparts A (as to certain defendants), B, D, E, and G (curcumin), granted summary judgment for Wakaya on subparts C, F, and H, denied the motion to exclude Dr. Plant, and denied Youngevity’s motion for summary judgment on subpart G.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are income-earning statements by Wakaya and its Ambassadors actionable false advertising?	Income claims were literal, specific, and misrepresentative; likely to induce people to join and thus actionable under § 43(a).	Claims are puffery or not about products; insufficient proof of materiality or dissemination.	Denied summary judgment for defendants as to income claims (subpart A) for Wakaya, Barb Pitcock, Dave Pitcock, and Andre Vaughn; held claims are literally false or raise triable issues and are not mere puffery.
Are statements about David Gilmour’s role (founder/owner/CEO) false and actionable?	Advertising represented Gilmour as founder/owner/CEO; testimony shows he is not an owner/CEO; statements therefore literally false or misleading.	Wakaya contends a broader, colloquial use of “founder” and ongoing involvement; factual dispute over meaning of “founder.”	Denied defendants’ summary judgment on subpart B; genuine disputes exist (owner/CEO statements literally false; founder usage disputed).
Are Wakaya’s curcumin-content claims ("~6% vs <1%") false such that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment?	Microbac data are the only basis for Wakaya’s high-percent claims; plaintiffs’ testing shows substantially lower curcumin—so claims are false.	Variability in natural product chemistry and differing test methods mean Wakaya’s Microbac result may be accurate for some batches; plaintiffs’ tests do not definitively refute Wakaya’s claim.	Denied Youngevity’s motion for summary judgment on subpart G and denied Wakaya’s summary judgment as to G; triable disputes remain about curcumin content and testing/variation.
Should Defendants’ rebuttal expert Dr. Joshua Plant be excluded?	Plant lacks specific turmeric/curcumin expertise, has potential conflict (manufacturer ownership), did not run independent tests—thus unreliable and biased.	Plant’s biomedical/analytical background is sufficient to rebut Rucker; alleged bias and lack of original testing go to weight, not admissibility.	Denied plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Plant under Rule 702/Daubert; challenges go to credibility and weight, not automatic exclusion.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute and evidence standard at summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (view inferences for nonmovant)
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (U.S. 2014) (Lanham Act claims allowed even when regulated by FDCA)
Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (five-element Lanham Act false advertising test; remedies discussion)
Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (literal falsity and misleading-by-implication doctrines)
Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (what constitutes commercial advertising/promotion)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (expert admissibility standard)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (court’s gatekeeping role for all expert testimony)