What Is the David Bar Lawsuit?
The David Bar lawsuit is a group of four proposed consumer class actions over the nutrition labels on David Protein bars. Linus Technologies, Inc. sells the bars as David Protein. The front of each wrapper reads "28g Protein | 150 Calories | 0g Sugar."
The best known case, Lopez v. Linus Technologies, Inc., alleged that the bars hold far more calories and fat than their labels state. Three shoppers filed it on January 23, 2026, and the plaintiffs dropped it about two months later.
Three newer cases challenge the "0g Sugar" claim instead, arguing that allulose, a sweetener in the bars, counts as a sugar under FDA rules. Those cases were filed between August 24 and September 10, 2026.
None of these cases is a multidistrict litigation, and each sits in a different federal court. A separate antitrust case involving David Protein and rival snack makers appears under related cases below.
“Plaintiffs Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson ("Plaintiffs") by and through their counsel, bring this class action against Defendant Linus Technologies, Inc. d/b/a David Protein ("Defendant") to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the calories and fat content in its consumer food products.”
Source: Lopez v. Linus Technologies, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00635 (S.D.N.Y.), Class Action Complaint, Document 1, paragraph 1 (January 23, 2026)
Why Are People Filing David Bar Lawsuits?
People are filing David Bar lawsuits because they say the calorie and sugar claims on each bar do not match its contents. Every complaint also says shoppers paid more for those claims than they would have paid otherwise.
The calorie theory rests on an FDA labeling limit. A food counts as misbranded when its measured calories exceed the declared value by more than 20 percent. The Lopez complaint cites that rule from 21 C.F.R. section 101.9(g)(5).
The sugar theory grew out of a Seventh Circuit decision in Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087, issued on July 27, 2026. The court held that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation, and the Yovino complaint relies on that decision.
The FDA also told the Seventh Circuit, as a friend of the court, that allulose falls within the regulatory definition of sugar. Its older enforcement guidance lets companies leave allulose out of the Total Sugars line, but commentators note that guidance does not bar private lawsuits.
What Injuries Are Included in the David Bar Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the David Bar lawsuit are economic, because the plaintiffs say they overpaid for bars that did not match their labels. The four alleged harms below come from the calorie case and the three zero sugar cases.
No court has ruled on any of these allegations, and David Protein disputes the calorie and fat claims. Each item describes what a complaint alleges, not a finding.
Understated Calories
Understated calories means a food label lists fewer calories per serving than the food actually provides.
The Lopez complaint said the plaintiffs sent David bars to Anresco Laboratories, an FDA-recognized lab, for testing. It reported 263.88 to 275 calories per bar, against the 150 printed on every wrapper.
The Blueberry Pie bar tested highest at 275 calories. The complaint described the gap as up to 83 percent over the label and pleaded it as misbranding under the FDA's 20 percent limit.
Understated Fat
Understated fat means a food label lists fewer grams of total fat per serving than the food contains.
The labels list 2 or 2.5 grams of total fat per bar. The Lopez complaint reported 11.76 to 13.52 grams, measured with AOAC International method 945.44, a gap of up to roughly 400 percent.
The complaint pleaded the fat figure as its own misstatement, because the Atwater calorie method it used depends on an accurate fat count.
Inaccurate Zero Sugar Claim
A zero sugar claim tells shoppers a food contains no sugar per serving, and federal labeling rules govern when a product may make it.
The Yovino complaint targets David Gold bars and alleges every bar is sweetened with allulose, a monosaccharide it calls a sugar. It alleges the "0g Sugar" promise is therefore false and violates 21 C.F.R. section 101.13(i)(3).
The complaint alleges the original formula held seven grams of allulose per bar from the September 16, 2024 launch until about February 2025. It alleges David Protein then moved maltitol ahead of allulose in the binding system and stopped disclosing the allulose amount.
The Dash docket lists a deceptive trade practices claim in Florida. Its complaint text was not available in the public record reviewed for this page, so its allegations are not described here.
Price Premium
A price premium is the extra amount a shopper pays because a product carries a particular label claim.
Each complaint frames the money injury as a price premium. The Lopez complaint alleged that David Protein charged more because of its low calorie and low fat claims.
The Yovino complaint says shoppers "paid for 0g sugar and received sugar" and were deprived of the benefit of their bargain. Both complaints say plaintiffs would have paid less or skipped the purchase.
Who Qualifies for the David Bar Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You bought David Protein bars in the United States for personal use, not for resale
- You bought bars carrying the "0g Sugar" label, the claim challenged in the two pending cases
- You can document the purchase with a receipt, order email, or card statement
You may not qualify if:
- You bought the bars only to resell them
- You are David Protein, an affiliate, or a current or former employee, officer, or director
- You expect a payment now, since no settlement exists and no class has been certified
- You are relying on the dismissed Lopez calorie case, which ended with no class and no payment
No court has certified a class in any David Protein case, so no one is currently a class member and no claim form exists. Proposed classes differ by complaint and could change. Only a qualified attorney reviewing your purchase records can confirm whether you fall within one.
What Is the Current Status of the David Bar Lawsuit?
The current status of the David Bar lawsuit is that two of four class actions are dismissed and two zero sugar class actions are pending. No court has ruled on whether any David Protein label is false or misleading.
A search of CourtListener on October 21, 2026 found no refiled calorie case. Both pending cases are early-stage filings in different federal courts, with no certified class and no reported settlement talks.
Lopez v. Linus Technologies, Inc.
Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson filed this calorie and fat class action on January 23, 2026. Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC represented them.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Case Number | 1:26-cv-00635 (JPO) |
| Judge | Judge James Paul Oetken |
| Filed | January 23, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs | Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, Crystal Paterson |
| Defendant | Linus Technologies, Inc. d/b/a David Protein |
| Proposed Class | Nationwide class plus California, Illinois, and New York classes of people who bought the bars for personal use |
| Current Stage | Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on March 30, 2026 |
David Protein's lawyers entered appearances on March 24, 2026, and the court granted an extension of the response deadline on March 25. The plaintiffs filed their notice of dismissal five days later, before David Protein answered.
Neither side has explained the dismissal publicly. Because it was without prejudice, the plaintiffs could refile, subject to any limitations deadlines.
Yovino v. Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC
Vincent Yovino of Contra Costa County, California filed the first zero sugar case on August 24, 2026. Treehouse Law, LLP represents him.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California |
| Case Number | 3:26-cv-08834 |
| Judge | Assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson, then reassigned in early October 2026 |
| Filed | August 24, 2026 |
| Plaintiff | Vincent Yovino |
| Defendant | Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC |
| Claims Alleged | Multi-state consumer protection violations, unjust enrichment, California CLRA, UCL, and FAL violations, and intentional misrepresentation |
| Proposed Class | A multi-state consumer protection class and a California class of people who bought David Gold bars for personal use |
| Current Stage | Pending; response to the complaint was due October 26, 2026 under the waiver of service, and a stipulation was filed October 7, 2026 |
The docket does not show what the October 7 stipulation covers, and no court has ruled on the merits.
McCarthy v. Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC
Ryan McCarthy filed a second zero sugar class action on September 4, 2026. Srourian Law Firm, P.C. represented him.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Central District of California |
| Case Number | 2:26-cv-09958 |
| Judge | Judge Dale S. Fischer |
| Filed | September 4, 2026 |
| Plaintiff | Ryan McCarthy |
| Defendant | Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC |
| Current Stage | Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 18, 2026 |
McCarthy dropped the case 14 days after filing it and before the defendant appeared. The notice did not state a reason, and the dismissal leaves him free to refile.
Dash v. Linus Technology, Inc.
Niki Dash filed the third zero sugar case in Florida on September 10, 2026, with a jury demand. Seraph Legal, P.A. represents the plaintiff.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida |
| Case Number | 5:26-cv-00646 |
| Judge | Judge Carlos E. Mendoza; Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens |
| Filed | September 10, 2026 |
| Plaintiff | Niki Dash |
| Defendant | Linus Technology, Inc. |
| Claims Alleged | Docket lists diversity jurisdiction and a deceptive trade practices cause of action |
| Current Stage | Pending; initial case management order entered September 14, 2026 |
The defendant's waiver of service was returned executed on the day of filing, and no ruling has been reported.
Is There a David Bar Lawsuit Settlement?
No. No David Bar lawsuit settlement exists as of October 21, 2026, because two cases ended by voluntary dismissal and the two pending cases have no certified class.
The Lopez complaint sought actual, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees, but it stated no total. Any estimate of what a shopper might receive would be speculation, and only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can assess a claim.
Because no settlement exists, there is no claim form, claims deadline, or administrator to file with. A site offering a David Protein payout describes something that does not currently exist.
The Lopez and Yovino complaints each invoke federal jurisdiction on an amount in controversy above $5,000,000. That figure is a threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act, not a settlement value or a promised recovery.
Latest David Bar Lawsuit Updates
The latest David Bar lawsuit updates and news, including new filings, rulings, and case-count reports, are tracked below as they're confirmed. No settlement date has been set as of October 2026; the two pending David Protein zero sugar class actions remain in active pretrial litigation. Every verified development is listed in the timeline below, in order.
David Bar Lawsuit Timeline
Three food makers sue David Protein over EPG supply
OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods sued David Protein, Epogee, and Peter Rahal in the Southern District of New York on May 30, 2025, as No. 1:25-cv-04544. The competitors alleged that David Protein's purchase of Epogee, the maker of the fat substitute EPG, cut off their supply.
Three shoppers file the calorie and fat class action
Daniella Lopez, David Freifeld, and Crystal Paterson sued Linus Technologies, Inc. on January 23, 2026, in the Southern District of New York. Their complaint alleged David bars hold up to 83 percent more calories and up to 400 percent more fat than labeled.
Judge Marrero dismisses the EPG antitrust complaint
Judge Victor Marrero dismissed the second amended complaint in the EPG antitrust case on February 4, 2026, according to a CourtDocket report. The report says he found the plaintiffs had not adequately defined the relevant product market.
Peter Rahal answers the calorie lawsuit with a Mean Girls joke
David Protein founder Peter Rahal posted "No one is getting Regina Georged" on X on March 11, 2026, referring to the film Mean Girls. He told NBC News the case was frivolous and that the plaintiffs measured calories the wrong way.
David Protein sends a letter to customers disputing the testing
Rahal addressed the Lopez allegations in a letter to customers and partners dated March 12, 2026. The letter said the lawsuit misunderstands how calories are calculated under federal labeling rules.
Defense lawyers appear and ask for more time in Lopez
Lawyers for Linus Technologies, Inc. entered appearances in Lopez v. Linus Technologies on March 24, 2026, and moved to extend the response deadline. Judge James Paul Oetken granted an extension the next day.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss the Lopez calorie case
Lopez, Freifeld, and Paterson filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in Lopez v. Linus Technologies on March 30, 2026. NBC News reported that the reason for the dismissal was not known.
David Protein says it is pleased the matter is resolved
David Protein told NBC News on March 31, 2026, that it was pleased the Lopez matter had been resolved. The company added that it remains confident in the accuracy of its nutrition labeling.
EPG antitrust docket records a dismissal stipulation
The docket in OWN Your Hunger v. Rahal shows a stipulation and order of voluntary dismissal, with party terminations, entered June 15, 2026. The public docket does not say which claims it covers.
Seventh Circuit rules allulose is a sugar in Franco v. Chobani
The Seventh Circuit decided Franco v. Chobani, LLC, No. 25-2087, on July 27, 2026, holding that allulose is a sugar under the federal regulation. The ruling later became the central authority in the David Protein zero sugar complaints.
Vincent Yovino files the first zero sugar class action
Vincent Yovino sued Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC in the Northern District of California on August 24, 2026, as No. 3:26-cv-08834. He alleges David Gold bars falsely promise "0g Sugar" while containing allulose.
David Protein waives service in the Yovino case
Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC returned a waiver of service in Yovino on August 27, 2026. The waiver set the defendant's answer deadline at October 26, 2026.
Ryan McCarthy files a second zero sugar case in Los Angeles
Ryan McCarthy sued Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC in the Central District of California on September 4, 2026, as No. 2:26-cv-09958. The case was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer on September 17.
Niki Dash files a third zero sugar case in Florida
Niki Dash sued Linus Technology, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida on September 10, 2026, as No. 5:26-cv-00646. The defendant's waiver of service was returned executed the same day.
Judge Mendoza enters the initial order in the Dash case
Judge Carlos E. Mendoza signed the initial case management order in Dash v. Linus Technology, Inc. on September 14, 2026. The order sets the deadlines the parties must follow in the Middle District of Florida.
McCarthy voluntarily dismisses the Los Angeles case
Ryan McCarthy filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the Central District of California on September 18, 2026. The dismissal came before the defendant appeared.
Yovino case is reassigned in the Northern District of California
The Northern District of California docketed a notice of impending reassignment on September 30, 2026, and a reassignment entry on October 1 in Yovino v. Linus Technology MergerSub, LLC. The public docket does not name the new judge.
Parties file a stipulation in the Yovino case
A stipulation without a proposed order was filed on the Yovino docket on October 7, 2026. The docket text does not describe what the parties agreed to.
How to File a David Bar Lawsuit
To file a David Bar lawsuit, review and follow the 5 steps below.
- Gather your David bar purchase records: Find receipts, order confirmations, or card statements showing when and where you bought David Protein bars.
- Keep the wrapper or a photo of the label: The pending cases challenge the "0g Sugar" claim, so a photo showing that wording and the flavor is useful.
- Check each docket before acting: Search the case number on CourtListener to see whether a class has been certified or a settlement has been filed.
- Avoid sites that promise a payout: No settlement exists, so any site asking for fees or financial details to claim a David Protein payout deserves skepticism.
- Consult a consumer class action attorney: A lawyer can confirm whether your purchases fall within a proposed class and whether any limitations deadline applies to you.
Answer a few questions and a case reviewer will follow up. Free, no obligation.
A case reviewer will follow up soon.
What Evidence Do You Need for a David Bar Lawsuit?
Evidence for a David Bar lawsuit claim centers on proof that you bought the bars and the label you relied on. A receipt, order email, or card statement showing the date and amount covers the first part.
A photo of the wrapper covers the second part. It should show the front label and the flavor, since the pending complaints quote the "0g Sugar" wording.
A shopper joining a class action generally does not need lab results of their own. The Lopez plaintiffs commissioned testing themselves.
What Did David Protein Allegedly Know About the David Bar Labels?
The Lopez complaint alleged David Protein knowingly promoted nutrition numbers meant to attract health-minded shoppers. ABC News reported that no regulator had announced enforcement tied to the claims, and the complaints cite no FDA warning to the company.
David Protein says its calorie count is correct because it counts only the calories the body absorbs from EPG, a modified plant fat. Rahal told NBC News the plaintiffs used a measurement method that does not fit that ingredient.
The Lopez complaint calculated calories with the standard Atwater factors and did not discuss EPG. The company has not publicly responded to the zero sugar complaints in the sources reviewed for this page.
| Position | Who | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint alleges labels understate calories and fat | Lopez, Freifeld, and Paterson | January 23, 2026 |
| Founder calls the calorie case frivolous and disputes the method | Peter Rahal | March 11, 2026 |
| Company says it is confident in its nutrition labeling | David Protein | March 31, 2026 |
| Complaint alleges allulose contradicts the "0g Sugar" claim | Vincent Yovino | August 24, 2026 |
No court has found that David Protein mislabeled any bar. The zero sugar complaints rely on a federal appeals court ruling that was public before they were filed.
How Does the David Bar Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The David Bar lawsuit differs from the EPG antitrust case and the Chobani zero sugar case in its parties, claims, and who can recover. Shoppers are the plaintiffs here, while food makers are the plaintiffs in the antitrust case.
OWN Your Hunger v. Rahal, No. 1:25-cv-04544 (S.D.N.Y.), is a competitor case before Judge Victor Marrero. Its plaintiffs alleged that the Epogee acquisition cut off their EPG supply. Shoppers are not parties to it, and reports differ on whether any claims remain after the June 2026 dismissal stipulation.
| Case | Court | Theory and status |
|---|---|---|
| Lopez v. Linus Technologies (calories) | S.D.N.Y. | Calories and fat understated; dismissed without prejudice |
| Yovino (zero sugar) | N.D. Cal. | "0g Sugar" claim false because of allulose; pending |
| McCarthy (zero sugar) | C.D. Cal. | Same claim; dismissed without prejudice |
| Dash (zero sugar) | M.D. Fla. | Deceptive trade practices; pending |
| OWN Your Hunger v. Rahal (antitrust) | S.D.N.Y. | Competitors' EPG supply; stipulation of dismissal docketed June 2026 |
| Franco v. Chobani (zero sugar) | 7th Cir. | Allulose in Zero Sugar yogurt; the precedent the allulose suits cite |
The Chobani lawsuit page covers the Franco case and three other Chobani proceedings in full.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the David Bar lawsuit about?
The David Bar lawsuit is about the nutrition labels on David Protein bars. One dismissed case alleged the bars contain more calories and fat than labeled, and the zero sugar cases allege the "0g Sugar" claim is false because the bars contain allulose.
Is the David Bar lawsuit real?
The David Bar lawsuit is real, and federal court dockets confirm four consumer class actions filed against the company behind David Protein bars between January and September 2026. Two of them have since been voluntarily dismissed.
Is the David Bar lawsuit a class action or an MDL?
The David Bar lawsuit is a set of proposed class actions, not a multidistrict litigation. The cases sit in four separate federal courts in New York, California, and Florida, and no court has certified a class in any of them.
Was the David Bar lawsuit dismissed?
The David Bar calorie lawsuit was dismissed when the plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice on March 30, 2026, without prejudice. The McCarthy zero sugar case was dismissed the same way on September 18, and the Yovino and Dash zero sugar cases remain pending.
Is there a David Bar lawsuit settlement?
No David Bar lawsuit settlement exists as of October 21, 2026. Two cases ended by voluntary dismissal, and the two pending cases have no certified class or reported settlement.
How do I sign up for the David Bar lawsuit?
No one can sign up for the David Bar lawsuit right now, because no court has certified a class and no claim form exists. A lawyer can tell you whether your purchases fall within a proposed class, which is not the same as joining a case.
How many calories are in a David protein bar?
A David protein bar is labeled at 150 calories, 28 grams of protein, and 0 grams of sugar. The Lopez plaintiffs alleged lab tests found 263.88 to 275 calories, while David Protein says its labels count only the calories the body absorbs.
Is the David Bar EPG lawsuit the same as the calorie lawsuit?
The David Bar EPG antitrust lawsuit is a different case from the calorie lawsuit. Three food makers that bought EPG brought it against David Protein, Epogee, and Peter Rahal, so shoppers are not parties to it.