SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. dismissed a putative class action against Traditional Medicinals Inc. on Monday, ruling that a plaintiff’s bare assertion that she paid a “price premium” for herbal supplements due to missing FDA disclaimers is insufficient to establish Article III standing.
Plaintiff Porsche Desrys filed the lawsuit in September 2025, alleging that Traditional Medicinals violated the FDA’s regulations by failing to place required disclaimer language on the same front panels as its structure function claims. The suit claimed the unlawful labeling caused consumers to pay a price premium for the products.
Desrys brought one claim for restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law, alleging the conduct violated California’s Sherman Law, which adopts federal food labeling requirements. She argued that the defendant’s conduct was unlawful because it violated these regulations.
Gilliam agreed with the defendant that Desrys failed to demonstrate a cognizable injury in fact. While paying a price premium can be a valid injury, the judge wrote that a plaintiff “may not rely on a bare legal conclusion to assert injury-in-fact.”
The court noted that Desrys did not provide factual support for her claim that she paid more because of the labeling. She did not allege that she saw the front panel without the disclaimer, was misled by the packaging, or provided details about her motivations for purchasing the product.
“It is entirely unclear to the Court what about Defendant’s unlawful conduct Plaintiff believes caused her to pay more,” Gilliam wrote.
The judge cited recent Northern District of California decisions, including Castillo v. Walmart, Inc. and Morehouse v. Apple, Inc., which concluded that conclusory statements unsupported by allegations of fact do not meet the burden for Article III standing.
In contrast, Gilliam pointed to cases where standing was found because plaintiffs alleged specific facts, such as choosing to pay a premium based on alleged misrepresentations or expressly alleging they would not have purchased the products had they known the representation was false.
Desrys argued in her opposition that she was not required to plead reliance or deception. Gilliam noted it was “telling” that she did not attempt to explain her price premium theory, instead arguing about what she was not required to plead.
The judge declined to reach whether Desrys must plead reliance or deception, stating she clearly must allege basic facts outlining how she was injured.
Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Desrys has 21 days to file an amended complaint.