The latest battle in the food industry’s protein boom is not playing out in grocery aisles – it is unfolding in court. Danone, for instance, recently sued rival Chobani in federal court, accusing the yogurt maker of misleading consumers by advertising “20G Protein” on certain yogurt products through the use of an allegedly improper serving size. Chobani has rejected the claims, arguing that its labeling complies with applicable requirements.
The lawsuit is the latest in a growing wave of litigation surrounding protein-focused products. As consumers increasingly seek out high-protein foods – and pay premiums for them, companies are finding themselves in disputes over everything from nutrition labeling and serving sizes to contamination claims and product safety, and even competition for key ingredients.
Once marketed primarily to athletes and fitness enthusiasts, protein has become a mainstream selling point fueled by social media-centric wellness trends, fitness culture, and the rise of GLP-1 medications. It now features prominently on product packaging and increasingly shapes purchasing decisions across categories ranging from yogurt and snack bars to powders and supplements. As protein has become more commercially valuable, so have the claims surrounding it. The result is a growing body of litigation testing not only how much protein products contain, but also how those claims are calculated, communicated, and substantiated.
The New Protein Litigation
Recent disputes suggest that scrutiny is coming from multiple directions. Companies are challenging how competitors are presenting protein claims. Danone’s lawsuit against Chobani, for example, centers on whether the yogurt maker’s serving-size calculations improperly allow it to advertise a higher protein content than consumers actually receive under FDA serving-size requirements.
Consumers are raising similar questions. In July, shoppers filed a separate suit against Chobani, alleging that the company’s “20G Protein” claim relies on an allegedly improper serving size that violates FDA requirements and inflates the product’s advertised protein content. Other cases focus less on how much protein products contain than on the broader promises surrounding them. David Protein, for instance, recently faced a proposed class action alleging that its calorie and fat disclosures were misleading because of the way the company accounted for an innovative fat substitute used in its products.
Although the parties voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in June before the court reached the merits, it nonetheless illustrates the increasingly technical disputes surrounding nutrition labeling for protein-focused foods.
Courts are also confronting challenges to the broader marketing of protein products. In July 2025, a federal court dismissed a proposed class action accusing KOS of deceptively marketing its protein powder as “organic,” “nature-powered,” and a “superfood” despite alleged presence of toxic PFAS chemicals. In siding with KOS, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a concrete economic injury.
Companies are battling over the protein market itself. Last year, a group of food companies sued the makers of David Protein, alleging that the company orchestrated an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the market for EPG, a fat substitute that has become central to many high-protein products. The closely-watched case – which remains pending after a TRO and preliminary injunction denial and dismissals with leave to amend – claims that David Protein’s parent company secretly acquired the sole commercial supplier of EPG and cut off competing brands’ access to the ingredient. Against that background, the plaintiffs have lodged antitrust claims that extend well beyond marketing and into competition for the rapidly growing protein market.
And regulators are taking notice, as well. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into protein powder manufacturers in June following reports identifying elevated levels of heavy metals in certain products. Weeks later, Costco was hit with a proposed class action over its marketing and sale of Orgain Organic Protein Powder, with plaintiffs alleging that the products contained heavy metals despite being marketed as a high-quality nutritional supplsement.
The legal theories differ – from false advertising and consumer protection to antitrust and product safety – but they all reflect the same commercial reality: as protein has become more valuable, so too have the legal disputes surrounding it.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Protein has long been used to differentiate food products. What is changing is the commercial value attached to protein-focused claims – and the growing willingness of competitors, consumers, and regulators to challenge them.
That dynamic is familiar across consumer industries. Luxury brands litigate over trademarks because trademarks command premiums. Beauty companies face lawsuits over “clean” and “natural” claims because those representations influence purchasing decisions. Food companies are finding themselves in similar disputes over protein for the same reason.
Share
