Abbott Laboratories loses bid to halt Glucerna class action
By Diana Novak Jones
June 6 (Reuters) -Litigation claiming that Abbott Laboratories is marketing Glucerna shakes and nutritional powders with harmful ingredients can move forward, a California federal judge said Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Jose largely rejected Abbott’s motion to dismiss the proposed class action, ruling that the consumers had provided enough evidence at this stage to support their claims that Glucerna, which says on its label that it is “scientifically designed for people with diabetes," contains sucralose and other additives that some studies show have dangerous health effects.
Pitts granted Abbott’s motion to dismiss the consumers’ request for an injunction requiring Abbott to amend the labeling on the Glucerna products, saying customers concerned about the additives can check the ingredients list to see if the products contain sucralose going forward.
Representatives for Abbott Laboratories did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
Bahar Sodaify, an attorney for the consumers, said in a statement that now Abbott "will have to answer why it elected to center Glucerna’s brand identity and product labeling on diabetes care while using ingredients that are known to deregulate blood sugar and are just not suitable for diabetics."
California resident Steven Prescott sued Abbott in August, alleging that the labels on the Glucerna products said they could help regulate blood sugar in diabetics and people with similar conditions. The lawsuit claims that the products are sweetened with sugar replacement sucralose, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food but can deregulate blood sugar, kill cells in the pancreas that release insulin and cause cells to become resistant to insulin.
Prescott, who sued under California consumer protection laws, said he would not have purchased the products had he known they wouldn’t work as advertised. Prescott is seeking to represent a class of California consumers who purchased the products.
Abbott has argued that the labeling on the Glucerna products is not misleading and that the products are meant to be a snack or meal replacement that helps with blood sugar regulation as compared with high glycemic carbohydrates. The company has also criticized the studies on sucralose Prescott relies on, saying they do not support a link between the sweetener and the health problems he alleges.
In its motion to dismiss, Abbott pointed to the shakes’ side label, which says the product is designed to “help minimize blood sugar spikes” in diabetics as compared with high glycemic carbohydrates.
But Pitts said at this stage that he couldn’t conclude that a consumer would understand that the side label limits the labeling on the front of the bottle as much as Abbott suggests.
The case is Prescott et al v. Abbott Laboratories, case number 5:23-cv-04348 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
For plaintiffs: Shireen Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm
For Abbott: Matthew Powers of O’Melveny & Myers, William Cavanaugh Jr and Jane Metcalf of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
