A proposed class action lawsuit accuses Linus Technologies, owner of the David Protein brand, of significantly understating the calorie and fat content of its protein bars.

The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the nutritional information given across several flavours of the company’s bars, marketed as containing 150 calories and about 2-2.5g of fat per serving, is materially inaccurate.

According to the lawsuit, independent laboratory testing found that the bars contained approximately 263 to 275 calories per serving – roughly 78% to 83% higher than the labelled value.

The same testing allegedly found 11 to 13.5 grams of total fat, compared with the 2-2.5g listed on packaging, a difference of roughly 368% to 400%, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say the testing was conducted by an accredited laboratory using commonly accepted industry methods, including Atwater factors to calculate caloric value and the AOAC 945.44 method for fat analysis.

Under US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, calorie values on nutrition labels must fall within a 20% tolerance threshold of the actual value when determined through approved methods.

Peter Rahal, founder of David, has disputed the claims, citing inappropriate testing methods for the types of ingredients used in the products.

In a statement on social media platform X, he said: "The confusion comes from how calories are being measured. When food is burned in a device called a bomb calorimeter, it measures the heat released. But nutrition labels aren’t based on how much heat something produces when burned. They’re based on what the human body can actually absorb and use for energy."

He continued: "That distinction matters for ingredients found in David, such as fibre, sweeteners and fat substitutes like EPG. Burning them in a bomb calorimeter treats them as fully digestible calories, even though they are not. That’s why the FDA requires different calculation methods for these ingredients when determining calories. David is 150 calories."

Three consumers, from California, Illinois and New York, filed the suit, claiming they purchased the bars based on their low-calorie and low-fat positioning. They argued that the nutritional claims were material to purchasing decisions and allowed the company to charge a price premium.

The plaintiffs allege the products are “misbranded” under federal food-labelling rules and violate several state consumer protection statutes, including New York’s General Business Law and California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws. The complaint also includes claims for breach of express warranty.

The case highlights the importance of robust nutritional validation and labelling compliance for brands competing in the health-positioned snack market.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status, damages, restitution and injunctive relief that could require changes to labelling and marketing practices if the accusations are proven.