Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`Jonas B. Jacobson (Cal. Bar No. 269912)
`jonas@dovel.com
`Simon Franzini (Cal. Bar No. 287631)
`simon@dovel.com
`
`DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
`201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
`Santa Monica, California 90401
`Telephone: (310) 656-7066
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Hope Murphy and Carol Lesh,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`Olly Public Benefit Corporation,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`B. 
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction. ............................................................................................................................... 1 
`Parties. ........................................................................................................................................ 2 
`Jurisdiction, venue, and divisional assignment. ......................................................................... 2 
`Facts. .......................................................................................................................................... 2 
`It is important to consumers that over-the-counter melatonin is accurately
`A. 
`dosed and labelled. ......................................................................................................... 2 
`Scientific research reveals serious problems with the accuracy of melatonin
`dosing and labelling in Canada. Scientists warn that the same is likely true of
`some U.S. brands. .......................................................................................................... 4 
`Olly sells over-the-counter melatonin supplements to millions of U.S.
`consumers. ...................................................................................................................... 4 
`Scientific testing reveals that Olly Melatonin has substantial and random
`overdoses of melatonin. ................................................................................................. 6 
`Olly’s labelling is false and misleading to reasonable consumers. ................................ 7 
`E. 
`Olly overcharges millions of consumers. ....................................................................... 8 
`F. 
`Plaintiffs were misled and harmed by Olly’s misleading labelling. .............................. 9 
`G. 
`Class action allegations. ........................................................................................................... 10 
`V. 
`VI.   Claims. ..................................................................................................................................... 12 
`Count 1: Violations of State Consumer Protection Acts .......................................................... 12 
`Count 2: Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) ....................................... 13 
`Count 3: Violation of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) ........................................... 14 
`Count 4: Unjust Enrichment/Quasi-Contract ........................................................................... 15 
`VII. Jury Demand. ............................................................................................................................ 15 
`VIII. Prayer for Relief. ...................................................................................................................... 15 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` i
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`1.
`Melatonin is a neurohormone that regulates the brain’s sleep cycle. Millions of
`consumers take over-the-counter melatonin supplements to help them sleep. Because melatonin
`alters brain chemistry, it is important that these supplements are accurately dosed and labelled.
`2.
`A few years ago, scientists tested Canadian melatonin supplements and found that, for
`a number of brands, the true amount of melatonin varied wildly from the label. Scientists and the
`National Institute of Heath have warned that the same may be true here in the U.S.
`3.
`Olly is a major U.S. brand of melatonin supplements, sold nationwide at retailers like
`Walmart, Whole Foods, and Target. Each bottle claims to have a specific dose of melatonin per
`serving. For example:
`
`
`
`Like millions of other consumers, Plaintiffs bought Olly melatonin and trusted the
`4.
`accuracy of Olly’s dosing and labelling. To determine how much melatonin is really in Olly, a
`university mass-spectrometry laboratory tested multiple bottles, including Plaintiffs’ bottles. The
`results were alarming—all bottles were substantially (and seemingly randomly) overdosed. The true
`amount of melatonin was 165% to 274% of the amount claimed.
`5.
`Olly systematically misrepresents how much melatonin is in the supplements it sells.
`Consumers are being misled, overcharged, and put at risk.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 1
`
` Case No.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Parties.
`6.
`Plaintiff Hope Murphy is domiciled in Vista, California. She purchased a bottle of
`Olly Sleep in California.
`7.
`Plaintiff Carol Lesh is domiciled in Berkeley, California. She purchased a bottle of
`Olly Sleep Extra Strength in California.
`8.
`The proposed class includes citizens of every state.
`9.
`Defendant Olly Public Benefit Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
`III.
`Jurisdiction, venue, and divisional assignment.
`10.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount
`in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the matter is a class action in
`which one or more members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different from Olly.
`11.
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Olly because (among other reasons) its
`principal place of business is in California.
`12.
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Olly resides in this District, at
`its San Francisco headquarters.
`13.
`Divisional Assignment. This case should be assigned to the San Francisco or Oakland
`division. See L.R. 3-2(d). A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in San
`Francisco, at Olly’s headquarters.
` IV. Facts.
`A.
`It is important to consumers that over-the-counter melatonin is accurately dosed
`and labelled.
`14. Melatonin (N-acetyl-5-methoxytryptamine) is a neurohormone produced by the pineal
`gland in the brain. It regulates the brain’s circadian rhythm and sleep cycle.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 2
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` The chemical structure of melatonin
`15. Millions of U.S. consumers take melatonin supplements to treat sleep problems,
`anxiety, and other issues. Melatonin is one of the most popular over-the-counter supplements in the
`U.S., and its use has “significantly increased” in the last 20 years. 1 Its use to help children fall asleep
`is becoming increasingly popular too. 2
`16.
`As scientists explained in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, because melatonin is
`“self-prescribed” (i.e., purchased directly by consumers who are not experts), it is particularly
`“important that labels are informative and representative of the product,” i.e., that the “label claim
`values for the active ingredient are accurate.” 3 When melatonin is falsely labelled, lower doses of
`melatonin “might be ineffective,” while “higher doses could lead to unpleasant/unexpected side
`effects.” 4 Side effects of melatonin include headaches, dizziness, nausea, or excessive or unwanted
`sleepiness. 5 “Many experts recommend starting with the smallest available dosage — 0.5 milligrams
`to 1 milligram.” 6 And regardless of side effects, consumers don’t want to take random, uncontrolled
`amounts of a neurohormone that alters brain chemistry.
`
`
`1 JAMA Research Letter, Trends in Use of Melatonin Supplements Among US Adults, 1999-
`2018, 327(5) JAMA 483 (2022).
`2 The New York Times, Parents Are Relying on Melatonin to Help Their Kids Sleep. Should
`They?, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/parenting/melatonin-sleep-kids.html
`3 Erland, L. & Saxena, P., Melatonin Natural Health Products and supplements: Presence of
`serotonin and significant variability of melatonin content, 13 Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 275–
`281 (2017).
`4 Grigg-Damberger, M. & Ianakieva, D., Poor quality control of over-the-counter melatonin:
`What they say is often not what you get, 13 Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 163–165 (2017).
`5 NIH National Library of Medicine Medline Plus, Melatonin,
`https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/natural/940.html
`6 The New York Times, Melatonin Isn’t a Sleeping Pill. Here’s How to Use It,
`https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/well/mind/melatonin-sleep-insomnia.html 
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` 3
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Scientific research reveals serious problems with the accuracy of melatonin
`dosing and labelling in Canada. Scientists warn that the same is likely true of
`some U.S. brands.
`In 2017, a study of Canadian melatonin brands found “high variability, ranging from
`17.
`−83% to +478%, of the labelled concentration of melatonin content in melatonin supplements.” 7 For
`over 70% of the tested brands, the true amount of Melatonin varied more than 10% from the listed
`amount. The amount of melatonin also varied highly between different lots (manufacturing batches)
`of the same product. The researchers concluded that “manufacturers require increased controls to
`ensure melatonin supplements” are accurately labelled.
`18.
`U.S. scientists warned that this Canadian study “herald[s] what may also be true in
`OTC melatonin supplements marketed in the United States.” 8 Likewise, the National Institute of
`Health has warned that “some melatonin supplements may not contain what’s listed on the product
`label.” 9 And Consumer Reports warned: “The findings … offer the latest proof of something
`supplement industry critics have long warned about: When it comes to this poorly regulated corner of
`modern medicine, consumers often don’t know what they’re buying.” 10
`C.
`Olly sells over-the-counter melatonin supplements to millions of U.S. consumers.
`19.
`Olly is a major U.S. brand of melatonin supplements. Its melatonin products (“Olly
`
`Melatonin”) are available nationwide at retailers like Walmart, Target, and Whole Foods. Millions of
`U.S. consumers buy Olly Melatonin and rely on the accuracy of its labelling.
`20.
`Olly makes and sells several varieties of Olly Melatonin, including the following non-
`limiting examples: Olly Sleep (regular, Extra Strength, and Ultra Strength), Immunity Sleep, Muscle
`Recovery Sleep, and Kids Sleep. For each product, the label claims a specific amount of melatonin
`per serving, e.g., 3 mg or 5 mg. Example products are shown below:
`
`7 Lauren, Melatonin Natural Health Products and supplements, 13 Journal of Clinical Sleep
`Medicine at 276.
`8 Madeleine, Poor quality control of over-the-counter melatonin, 13 Journal of Clinical Sleep
`Medicine at 163.
`9 NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Melatonin:What You Need
`To Know, https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/melatonin-what-you-need-to-know
`10 Consumer Reports, New Study Questions Ingredient Levels in Some Melatonin
`Supplements, https://www.consumerreports.org/melatonin/study-questions-ingredient-levels-some-
`melatonin-supplements/
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 4
`
` Case No.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 5
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`All Olly Melatonin products are substantially similar. They all advertise melatonin as
`21.
`a key, active ingredient and claim to have a specific amount of melatonin per serving.
`D.
`Scientific testing reveals that Olly Melatonin has substantial and random
`overdoses of melatonin.
`Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry analysis (LC-MS) can accurately measure
`22.
`the true amount of melatonin in an over-the-counter supplement. For Olly Melatonin, a university
`mass-spectrometry used LC-MS to test Olly Melatonin. The lab tested multiple bottles and types of
`Olly Melatonin, including Plaintiffs’ bottles. The results are summarized below:
`
`
`True
`melatonin dose
`(mg / gummy)12
`4.11
`2.48
`4.77
`
`True melatonin
`dose
`(%)13
`+274%
`+165%
`+190%
`
`Olly type
`
`Olly Sleep
`Olly Immunity Sleep
`Olly Extra Strength
`
`Claimed
`melatonin dose
`(mg / gummy)11
`1.50
`1.50
`2.50
`
`
`11 The serving size for each bottle is 2 gummies/serving. Accordingly, the per-gummy
`claimed amount of melatonin is half the per-serving claimed amount.
`12 The lab tested three gummies per bottle and averaged the results. There was little variance
`in the melatonin content between gummies in the same bottle.
` 13 The percentage ratio of the true dose to the claimed dose.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
` 6
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`As the results show, the melatonin content of Olly is consistently (and randomly)
`23.
`
`overdosed. For example, the bottle of Olly Sleep had nearly three times the amount of melatonin
`listed on the label, and the bottle of Olly Extra Strength had nearly twice the amount of listed
`melatonin. Something is systematically and seriously wrong with Olly’s dosing and labelling.
`E.
`Olly’s labelling is false and misleading to reasonable consumers.
`24.
`By selling a melatonin supplement for sleep (i.e., a supplement that alters brain
`chemistry), Olly is representing to consumers that its products are accurately dosed and labelled.
`When a consumer picks up a bottle of Olly Melatonin, they reasonably expect that it actually has the
`dosage for which Olly designed the recommended serving. No reasonable consumer expects that a
`melatonin supplement has a random and substantial overdose of melatonin, compared to what it is
`supposed to have. And specifically, when a bottle of Olly says it has a particular amount of
`melatonin per serving (e.g., 5 mg), consumers expect this to be accurate.
`25.
`At a bare minimum, reasonable consumers would expect that if the true amount of
`melatonin in Olly’s supplements was substantially (and randomly) higher than the listed amount, Olly
`would prominently disclose this fact. Consumers do not know the accuracy of Olly’s dosing—that is
`exclusively within Olly’s knowledge. And Olly affirmatively represents that its products have a
`specific amount of melatonin, e.g., 3 mg and 5 mg.
`26.
`Olly’s labeling is false and misleading to consumers in multiple respects. The dosage
`of Olly Melatonin is not well-controlled and consistent with the dosages for which Olly designed the
`recommended servings. Olly Melatonin does not have the amount of melatonin claimed on the label.
`And Olly does not even mention that the actual dosage may vary.
`27.
`The inaccurate dosing and labelling of Olly Melatonin is highly material to reasonable
`consumers. Consumers need melatonin supplements to be accurately dosed and labelled, so that
`consumers aren’t unknowingly ingesting more neurohormone than they intend to take. No
`reasonable consumer wants to buy and ingest a supplement containing a random, undisclosed amount
`of melatonin. No reasonable consumer wants a product that even has a material risk of such
`problems.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 7
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Olly recognizes that its consumers demand accuracy in dosing and labeling. Olly sells
`28.
`different types of Olly Melatonin, with different claimed strengths, so that consumers can choose
`what is right for them. Olly’s website claims that its products are “ensured with quality and safety,”
`and that “every product is made to meet our formulators specifications for identity, purity and
`potency to ensure they meet what their label claims.” 14 Olly says this because consumers want this
`to be true. But it is not true.
`29.
`Olly also admits that it is undesirable and even dangerous for consumers to ingest
`more melatonin than the recommended dosage on the bottles. Olly states: “We do not recommend
`exceeding the amount noted on every bottle’s Suggested Use. Each product was formulated by
`nutritional experts to deliver an effective dose of active ingredients that address daily needs and
`promote optimum health.” 15 But due to Olly’s inaccurate dosing and labelling, Olly’s customers are
`unknowingly doing exactly what Olly recommends against (exceeding the recommended dosages for
`each bottle).
`Olly knows, or reasonably should know, that it is misleading consumers. As described
`30.
`above, Olly claims that it actively monitors the “potency” of “every product.” Therefore Olly
`knows, or reasonably should know, that the potency of Olly Melatonin is systematically inaccurate,
`compared to its labels.
`F.
`Olly overcharges millions of consumers.
`31.
`Olly’s false and misleading labelling drives the demand for Olly Melatonin. As
`explained above, consumers demand melatonin that is accurately dosed and labelled. This is
`recognized by scientists, Consumer Reports, and Olly itself. If Olly told the truth—that its dosing
`and labelling was seriously inaccurate—the price of its products would crater. For example, on the
`Target website, a bottle of Olly Sleep costs $12.89. If consumers knew the truth—that this bottle
`likely has some random and excessive amount of melatonin per serving—Olly could not sell it for
`anything close to $12.89 (or even sell it at all). Plaintiffs and each class member paid a substantial
`price premium driven by Olly’s false and misleading labelling.
`
`
`14 https://www.olly.com/pages/inside-the-product
`15 https://help.olly.com/hc/en-us/articles/360035074332-Can-I-take-more-than-the-
`recommended-dose-
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 8
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In fact, without accurate dosing and labelling, Olly Melatonin is worthless. What
`32.
`reasonable consumer wants to buy a supplement that alters brain chemistry, knowing that it may be
`randomly and substantially overdosed? There is no melatonin product on the market that tells its
`customers that its dosing is seriously inaccurate because such a product could not sell. Plaintiffs and
`each class member paid for Olly Melatonin products that are, in truth, worthless. Thus, the full
`economic injury here is the entire price of the Olly Melatonin that Plaintiffs and class members
`purchased.
`Plaintiffs were misled and harmed by Olly’s misleading labelling.
`G.
`Like millions of other consumers, Plaintiffs bought Olly Melatonin and relied on the
`33.
`accuracy of Olly’s dosing and labelling.
`34.
`In or around fall 2021, Carol Lesh bought a bottle of Olly Sleep Extra Strength (Lot
`#1246D5716) from a Whole Foods in Berkeley, California. Because she was buying a melatonin
`supplement that could alter brain chemistry, she relied on the fact that Olly’s dosages were well-
`controlled (i.e., that the actual dosage would match the recommended dosages). She read and relied
`on the accuracy of the melatonin content on the label, when buying the product and deciding to take
`it. She would not have purchased the product if she knew that Olly had serious problems with the
`accuracy of its dosing and labelling. In fact, knowing the truth, the product is worthless to her.
`35.
`In or around March 2022, Hope Murphy purchased a bottle of Olly Sleep (Lot
`#1300M5735) from either Walmart or Winco in Oceanside, California. Because she was buying a
`melatonin supplement that could alter brain chemistry, she relied on the fact that Olly’s dosages were
`well-controlled (i.e., that the actual dosage would match the recommended dosages). She read and
`relied on the accuracy of the melatonin content on the label, when buying the product and deciding to
`take it. She would not have purchased the product if she knew that Olly had problems with the
`accuracy of its dosing and labelling. In fact, knowing the truth, the product is worthless to her.
`36.
`Plaintiffs want Olly to fix its manufacturing practices and sell its melatonin products
`with accurate dosing and labelling. If Olly fixes its products, so that they are accurately dosed and
`labelled, Plaintiffs would buy them again. But given Olly’s past deception, Plaintiffs cannot rely on
`Olly’s word alone that it has fixed the problem. Plaintiffs face an imminent threat of harm because
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 9
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`they will not be able to rely on Olly’s labels in the future, and will not be able to buy Olly Melatonin,
`even if Olly claims to have fixed the issue. To buy Olly products again, Plaintiffs need the Court to
`enter an order forbidding Olly from selling its melatonin unless it has fixed the dosing and labelling
`problem. With that Court order in hand, Plaintiffs could and would buy Olly Melatonin again. And
`with that order in hand, millions of other consumers will be protected from being deceived like
`Plaintiffs were deceived.
`V.
`Class action allegations.
`37.
`Plaintiffs bring their claims individually and on behalf of the following class and
`subclasses:
`
`Class or Subclass Name
`Nationwide Class
`
`Multi-State Consumer
`Protection Subclass
`
`California Subclass
`
`Definition
`All persons who purchased
`Olly Melatonin in the United
`States during the applicable
`statute of limitations.
`All persons who purchased
`Olly Melatonin in the
`identified states (see Count 1)
`during the applicable statute
`of limitations.
`All persons who purchased
`Olly Melatonin in California
`during the applicable statute
`of limitations.
`The following people are excluded from the class and the subclasses: (1) any Judge or
`38.
`Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and the members of their family; (2) Defendant,
`Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or
`its parents have a controlling interest and their current employees, officers and directors; (3) persons
`who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose
`claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs’
`counsel and Defendant’s counsel, and their experts and consultants; and (6) the legal representatives,
`successors, and assignees of any excluded persons.
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 10
`
` Case No.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Numerosity
`39.
`The proposed class contains members so numerous that separate joinder of each
`member of the class is impractical. There are millions of proposed class members.
`Commonality
`40.
`There are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class. Common
`questions of law and fact include, without limitation:
` Whether Olly Melatonin products are accurately dosed and labelled;
` Whether Olly’s labelling is misleading to reasonable consumers;
` Whether Olly violated state consumer protection laws;
` The monetary relief needed to reasonably compensate Plaintiffs and the proposed class.
`Typicality
`41.
`Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the proposed class. Like the proposed class, Plaintiffs
`purchased Olly Melatonin.
`Predominance and Superiority
`42.
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the proposed class
`would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members, which
`would establish incompatible standards for the parties opposing the class. For example, individual
`adjudication would create a risk that Olly Melatonin labelling is found to be misleading for some
`consumers, but not other similarly-situated consumers.
`43.
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only
`individual members of the proposed class. These common legal and factual questions arise from
`central issues which do not vary from class member to class member, and which may be determined
`without reference to the individual circumstances of any particular class member. For example, a core
`liability question is common: whether Olly’s labelling is misleading to reasonable consumers.
`44.
`A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
`adjudication of this litigation because individual litigation of each claim is impractical. It would be
`unduly burdensome to separately litigate millions of individual claims.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 11
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`VI. Claims.
` Count 1: Violations of State Consumer Protection Acts
`(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Multi-State Consumer Protection Subclass)
`
`Connecticut
`Illinois
`Maryland
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate each and every factual allegation set forth above.
`45.
`As alleged below, Plaintiffs bring individual and subclass claims based on California
`46.
`law. For the Multi-State Consumer Protection Subclass, Plaintiffs bring this count for violations of
`state consumer protection laws that are materially-similar to the laws of California, including:
`State
`Statute
`California
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and the
`following; Id. §17500, and the following; Cal. Civ.
`Code §1750 and the following.
`Conn. Gen Stat. Ann. § 42- 110, and the following.
`815 ILCS § 501/1, and the following.
`Md. Code Ann. Com. Law, § 13-301, and the
`following.
`Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407, and the following.
`Missouri
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and the following.
`New York
`47.
`Each of these statutes is materially similar. Each broadly prohibits deceptive conduct
`in connection with the sale of goods to consumers. No state requires individualized reliance, or proof
`of defendant’s knowledge or intent. Instead, it is sufficient that the deceptive conduct is misleading
`to reasonable consumers and that the conduct proximately caused harm.
`48.
`As alleged in detail above, Olly’s misrepresentations and omissions are misleading to
`reasonable consumers in a material way. Olly’s false and misleading labelling was a substantial
`factor in Plaintiffs’ purchase decisions and the purchase decisions of class members.
`49.
`Plaintiffs and class members were injured as a direct and proximate result of Olly’s
`conduct because: (a) they would not have purchased Olly Melatonin if they had known that Olly has
`serious and systematic problems with its dosing and labelling; (b) they overpaid for the products
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 12
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`because the products are sold at a price premium due to Olly’s misleading labelling; or (c) they
`received products that were, in truth, worthless.
`
` Count 2: Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
`(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California Subclass)
`Plaintiffs incorporate each and every factual allegation set forth above.
`Plaintiffs bring this cause of action individually and on behalf of the California
`
`50.
`51.
`Subclass.
`Olly has violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by engaging in
`52.
`unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct (i.e., violating each of the three prongs of the UCL).
`The Unlawful Prong
`53.
`Olly engaged in unlawful conduct by violating the FAL, as alleged below and
`incorporated here.
`The Fraudulent Prong
`54.
`As alleged in detail above, Olly’s labelling is false and misleading. Its labelling is
`likely to deceive, and did deceive, Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers.
`The Unfair Prong
`55.
`Olly’s conduct, as detailed above, also violated the “unfair” prong of the UCL.
`56.
`Olly’s conduct caused substantial injury to Plaintiffs and subclass members. The harm
`to Plaintiffs and the subclass greatly outweighs the public utility of Defendant’s conduct (which is
`none). Inaccurately dosed and labelled melatonin supplements have no public utility. This injury
`was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Misleading labels
`only injure healthy competition and harm consumers.
`57.
`Plaintiffs and the class could not have reasonably avoided this injury. As alleged
`above, Olly’s misrepresentations and omissions were deceiving to reasonable consumers.
`58.
`Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above, was immoral, unethical, oppressive,
`unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers
`59.
`Defendant’s conduct violated the public policy against false and misleading
`advertising, which is tethered to the CLRA and FAL.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` 13
`
` Case No.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03760 Document 1 Filed 06/24/22 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`* * *
`For all prongs, Plaintiffs saw, read and reasonably relied on Olly’s misrepresentations
`60.
`and omissions when purchasing Olly Melatonin. Classwide reliance can be inferred because
`Defendant’s misrepresentations were material, i.e., a reasonable consumer would consider them
`important in deciding whether to buy Olly Melatonin.
`61.
`Olly’s misrepresentations and omissions were a substantial factor in Plaintiffs’
`purchase decision and the purchase decisions of class members.
`62.
`Plaintiffs and class members were injured as a direct and proximate result of Olly’s
`conduct because: (a) they would not have purchased Olly Melatonin if they had known that Olly has
`serious and systematic problems with its dosing and labelling; (b) they overpaid for the products
`because the products are sold at a price premium due to Olly’s misleading labelling; or (c) they
`received products that were, in truth, worthless.
`
` Count 3: Violation of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL)
`(on behalf of Plaintiffs and the California Subclass)
`Plaintiffs incorporate each and every factual allegation set forth above.
`Plaintiffs bring this cause of action individually and on behalf of the California
`
`63.
`64.
`subclass.
`As alleged in detail above, Olly falsely advertised its products by falsely representing
`65.
`that Olly Melatonin is accurately dosed and labelled.
`66.
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions were likely to deceive, and did deceive,
`Plaintiffs and other reasonable c