Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Putative Class Members Cannot Establish Damages in Dietary Supplement Case

by Amy Lane Hurwitz

In Moore v. GNC Holdings, Inc., Southern District of Florida Judge Dimetrouleas ordered partial summary judgment in favor of GNC and against the class as to plaintiffs’ damages claims under Florida’s Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). While this order does not dispense with all of the claims, it does eliminate any potential monetary award to the class, and limits plaintiffs to injunctive relief.

More specifically, despite the court’s finding that competing evidence exists as to whether a certain warning was necessary on the label of GNC’s dietary supplement product, plaintiffs could not establish actual monetary damages under FDUTPA.GNC proffered evidence that similar products with and without such a warning cost essentially the same per gram. Thus, plaintiffs could not prove that they had paid a price premium for the product at issue, and absent doing so, could not establish monetary damages. Under this logic, the court found, plaintiffs also could not establish that GNC retained any benefit beyond the market value of the product, and their claims for unjust enrichment also fail.

While plaintiffs are no longer eligible to receive monetary damages as a result of this order, their counsel could still seek attorney’s fees under FDUPTA in the event they pursue, and prevail, on their injunction claim. The order cannot be appealed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Putative Nationwide Class Of Car Dealers Turns Out To Be A Lemon – Individualized Issues Preclude Certification

Next Article »

Knowles Gives Employer Second Chance To Seek And Win Removal

About Amy Lane Hurwitz

Amy Hurwitz is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Amy on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Does Rule 23(e) Require that Settlement Class Members Receive Notice of Modification to Cy Pres Remedy?
  2. California District Court Finds CAFA’s Amount-in-Controversy Requirement Satisfied and No Local Controversy Alleged; Denies Motion to Remand
  3. For Want of a Damages Model, Certification Was Lost

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

2025 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Supreme Court Refuses to Decide Whether Damages Class Containing Both Injured and Uninjured Members Can Be Certified
  • Royal Canin v. Wullschleger: A Primer on Jurisdiction
  • Classified (Bi-)Monthly: A Roundup of Class Action Decisions From Federal Appellate Courts July and August 2024

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified®: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Copyright © 2025 · Carlton Fields · All Rights Reserved