A group of food companies has filed a sweeping lawsuit accusing the companies behind the wildly-popular David Protein brand of orchestrating a “coordinated scheme” to monopolize part of the wellness market. In the complaint that they filed in a New York federal court on June 2, Own Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods LLC, and Defiant Foods LLC accuse Linus Technology, its founder Peter Rahal, and ingredient supplier Apogee LLC (the “defendants”) of running afoul of federal antitrust law by engaging in a “systematic supply denial and market manipulation” campaign that allowed them to secure exclusive control over a critical ingredient many companies had come to depend on and to eliminated competitors in the process.
Setting the stage in their complaint, Own Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods LLC, and Defiant Foods LLC (the “plaintiffs”) assert that EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol) represents the only commercially viable fat replacement capable of reducing calories from fat by 92 percent without compromising taste or texture. Developed over nearly two decades with more than $150 million in investment, EPG has become central to numerous brands’ product lines.
According to the complaint, Epogee actively encouraged manufacturers to build their businesses around EPG, providing assurances of continued access and stable supply – only to later walk back on those promises.
A Critical Ingredient in the Spotlight
The state of the market for EPG dramatically changed in early 2025, according to the plaintiffs, when Rahal and Linus Technology, which operates the protein bar brand, “David Protein,” entered into secret acquisition negotiations with Epogee. Beginning in March 2025, Epogee began reporting unexpected supply shortages while concealing the pending acquisition. Throughout this period, plaintiffs claim that Epogee repeatedly provided “vague responses” to inquiries about product availability, attributing the disruptions to raw material shortages while the defendants were in fact orchestrating the deal behind the scenes.
The plaintiffs characterize the defendants’ conduct as a deliberate “bait-and-switch” strategy. After encouraging substantial financial investments by manufacturers to develop EPG-based product lines, defendants allegedly “pulled the rug” from under these businesses by cutting off supply once control of Epogee was secured. According to the complaint, the acquisition resulted in Linus Technology moving from controlling approximately 90 percent of Epogee’s business as its largest customer to exercising 100 percent control over global EPG supply.
Key to the plaintiffs’ claims are public comments made by Rahal that appear to confirm the exclusionary intent of the acquisition. In a May 29 interview with industry outlet snaxshot.com, when asked about the fate of existing EPG customers, Rahal bluntly stated, “Given supply situation, cease supply.” He further remarked, “We will be taking all the supply,” and criticized the competitive landscape in consumer packaged goods, stating, “CPG sucks because of the competition.”
Supply Denial & Market Manipulation
The lawsuit accuses David Protein and co. of violating multiple antitrust statutes and also invokes the essential facilities doctrine, which is rarely used in modern antitrust litigation, arguing that EPG constitutes an essential input that competitors cannot practically replicate, given its complex production process, 18-year development cycle, and proprietary technology.
According to the complaint, the defendants’ conduct constituted “systematic supply denial and market manipulation,” involving: the coordinated timing of supply restrictions to coincide with secretive acquisition negotiations; a deliberate two-month concealment period during which customers were misled and prevented from seeking alternative arrangements; the hoarding of two years’ worth of EPG inventory, far exceeding any legitimate business needs, to ensure that competitors would be entirely foreclosed from the market; and coordinated suppression of public reporting about the acquisition, including the removal of a nosh.com article on May 27, 2025.
The plaintiffs allege that this exclusionary conduct has caused immediate and severe financial harm, including complete production shutdowns, employee layoffs, lost sales, idle manufacturing capacity, and stranded R&D investments. In total, the plaintiffs report sunk development costs of over $449,000, lost sales exceeding $100,000, and ongoing monthly operational losses of approximately $15,000.
With the foregoing in mind, the plaintiffs set out claims of unlawful restraint of trade, monopolization, illegal acquisition, violation of New York’s Donnelly Act, and denial of access to an essential facility in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The plaintiffs are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to compel the immediate restoration of EPG supply under the commercial terms that existed prior to the acquisition. They are also requesting treble damages under both federal and state antitrust statutes.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The lawsuit comes as David Protein rapidly emerges as one of the most closely watched startups in the functional nutrition market. The two-year-old company raised $75 million in Series A funding earlier this year, bringing its total capital raised to over $85 million, with backing from high-profile investors, including Peter Attia, Andrew Huberman, and several prominent venture funds, David Protein. The company has seen swift retail expansion, securing distribution in over 3,000 stores and quickly generating viral attention across social media platforms like TikTok, thereby, positioning itself as a breakout player in the highly competitive protein bar category.
As the food industry continues to evolve with novel ingredients like EPG at its core, the outcome of this lawsuit may serve as an important legal test case for how antitrust law applies to proprietary ingredient markets, supply chain control, and so-called “essential facility” claims.
The case is OWN Your Hunger v. Rahal, 1:25-cv-04544 (SDNY).
Share
