Nagel

Nagel v. Twin Laboratories, Inc.

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 39·134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 420·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 764·2003 Daily Journal DAR 5542·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4354
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 2003No. G030196California5,379 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

Twin Laboratories, Inc., manufactures and markets nutritional and dietary supplements, some of which contain ma huang, a botanical source of ephedra alkaloids. General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) and its franchisees sell these products.

James Nagel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (collectively Nagel), sued Twin Laboratories, Inc. (apparently incorrectly named *43 in the complaint as Twin Lab Corporation), GNC, and certain GNC franchisees for violations of California’s unfair competition laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (For ease of reference, we will refer to all defendants collectively as Twin Labs.) Both Twin Labs’ product labels and its Web site state that the ma huang extract in Twin Labs’ product “Ripped Fuel” is “standardized for 6% ephedrine.” Nagel claims this statement is false and misleading.

Twin Labs moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The trial court found Twin Labs’ labeling and advertising to be speech protected by section 425.16, but also found Nagel had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.