April 26, 2017
SIDLEY UPDATE
U.S. District Court Issues Powerful Decision for Dietary
Supplement Industry
On April 18, 2017, Judge Michael Vasquez granted summary judgment to Bayer in a consumer class action
over its probiotic dietary supplement Phillips’ Colon Health. In re Bayer Phillips’ Colon Health Probiotics
Sales Practices Litigation, No. 11-03017 (D. NJ). This important decision should help rein in the onslaught
of lawsuits that improperly target dietary supplements.
First, the Court’s decision reinforces that dietary supplements are not regulated as drugs, and structure
function claims need not be supported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs).
Second, the opinion makes clear that private consumer class actions cannot be premised on a “lack of
substantiation” theory.
RCTs Are Not Required
Recognizing the many health benefits of dietary supplements, Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) to ensure that supplements can be marketed and sold without
following the stringent requirements imposed on prescription drugs. In April 2001, the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) promulgated guidance stating that the relevant standard for dietary supplements is
“competent and reliable scientific evidence.”
The FTC guidance makes clear that drug-level randomized clinical trials are not required. Instead,
“competent and reliable scientific evidence” is a “flexible” standard and “[t]here is no fixed formula for the
number or type of studies required.” Even “[r]esults obtained in animal and in vitro studies will . . . be
examined, particularly where they are widely considered to be acceptable substitutes for human research or
where human research is infeasible.” “[E]pidemiologic evidence may be an acceptable substitute for clinical
data” in some circumstances.
In conflict with its own published guidance, however, the FTC and class action lawyers have brought a
number of suits against dietary supplement companies on the grounds that the supplement claims are not
supported by RCTs. Courts have rejected these attempts to ignore federal law. The most recent defeat for the
FTC came in U.S. v. Bayer, where the Court denied the FTC’s attempt to demand drug-level clinical trials to
support proper structure function claims for the same probiotic product, Phillips’ Colon Health. U.S. v.
Bayer, No. 07-0001 (D.NJ).
Attorney Advertising: For purposes of compliance with New York State Bar rules, our headquarters are Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019, +1 212 839
5300; 1 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, +1 312 853 7000; and 1501 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20005, +1 202 736 8000. Sidley Austin provides this information as a service
to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship.
SIDLEY UPDATE
Page 2
Unfortunately, despite this defeat, the FTC continues to demand RCTs for dietary supplements. And,
following that decision, an FTC attorney reportedly stated: “I don’t think [the US v. Bayer decision] was
about whether you need clinical trials.” 1 The most recent judicial decision makes clear that this statement is
incorrect.
The Court in In re Bayer Phillips Colon Health reinforced that clinical trials are not required. The Court
relied heavily on the FTC case (U.S. v. Bayer) and explained that the FTC opinion held that “RCTs are not
required to meet the standard of ‘competent and reliable scientific evidence’” and that “dietary supplements
do not” need to meet the “higher standard” that applies to drugs. Op. at 15. At bottom, the U.S. v. Bayer
opinion means what it says: dietary supplements must be regulated as Congress intended. They are
supplements, not drugs.
Private Plaintiffs Cannot Pursue a Lack of Substantiation Claim
The Court also closed the door to a claim favored by private plaintiffs — a “lack of substantiation” claim.
Plaintiffs often sue manufacturers under state consumer fraud laws arguing that a particular food or
supplement claim is not adequately substantiated by scientific evidence, where they cannot prove that the
claim is scientifically false.
In In re Bayer Phillips Colon Health, the Court held that “[m]erely proving that the claims are
unsubstantiated is insufficient.” Op. at 20. Rather, “a plaintiff must put forth affirmative evidence of falsity.”
Op. at 19. Plaintiffs’ expert in this case testified that his only basis for saying that Bayer’s claims were false
was that Bayer had no supportive RCT and that a number of existing RCTs did not show positive results. The
Court rejected this testimony and explained that it “is nothing more than a lack-of-substantiation theory.”
Op. at 24. The Court further described the expert’s opinion as “pure speculation” or an “educated guess,”
both of which are wholly insufficient to survive summary judgment.
Plaintiffs around the country are pursuing similar claims based on a lack of substantiation theory and are
tendering experts that apply the drug-level standard. Following the Phillips Colon Health case, courts should
similarly reject these claims.
If you have any questions regarding this Sidley Update, please contact the Sidley lawyer with whom you usually work or
Scott Bass
Partner
[email protected]
+1 212 839 5613
Kara L. McCall
Partner
[email protected]
+1 312 853 2666
Eugene A. Schoon
Partner
[email protected]
+1 312 853 7279
Benjamin M. Mundel
Associate
[email protected]
+1 202 736 8157
Diane C. McEnroe
Partner
[email protected]
+1 212 839 5621
“FTC Attorney Hoists RCT Standard For Supplement Claims, Industry Swings Back” Malcolm Spicer, Elsevier Business Intelligence,
July 6, 2016.
1
SIDLEY UPDATE
Page 3
Sidley FDA Practice
Sidley Austin LLP has an internationally recognized food and drug practice, representing major pharmaceutical, biological,
medical device and food/dietary supplement clients on matters relating to the development, manufacture and marketing of
products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related government authorities.
For further information on the FDA Practice, please contact:
Raymond A. Bonner
+1 202 736 8679
[email protected]
Coleen Klasmeier
+1 202 736 8132
[email protected]
Sidley Global Life Sciences Practice
On three continents, Sidley’s Global Life Sciences practice team offers coordinated cross-border and national advice on Food,
Drug and Medical Device Regulatory, Life Sciences Enforcement, Litigation and Compliance, Healthcare Regulatory, Products
Liability, Intellectual Property, Corporate and Technology Transactions, Securities and Corporate Finance, International Trade
and Arbitration, FCPA/Anti-Corruption, Antitrust/Competition, Environmental/Nanotechnology.
Globally rated as one of the top life sciences practices, our team includes former senior government officials, medical doctors
and leaders in various life sciences fields.
For further information on the Global Life Sciences practice, please contact:
Scott Bass
+1 202 736 8684
+1 212 839 5613
[email protected]
Maja C. Eaton
+1 312 853 7123
[email protected]
Paul E. Kalb, M.D
+1 202 736 8050
[email protected]
David J. Zampa
+1 312 853 4573
[email protected]
To receive Sidley Updates, please subscribe at www.sidley.com/subscribe.
BEIJING ∙ BOSTON ∙ BRUSSELS ∙ CENTURY CITY ∙ CHICAGO ∙ DALLAS ∙ GENEVA ∙ HONG KONG ∙ HOUSTON ∙ LONDON ∙ LOS ANGELES ∙
MUNICH ∙ NEW YORK ∙ PALO ALTO ∙ SAN FRANCISCO ∙ SHANGHAI ∙ SINGAPORE ∙ SYDNEY ∙ TOKYO ∙ WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sidley and Sidley Austin refer to Sidley Austin LLP and affiliated partnerships as explained at www.sidley.com/disclaimer. www.sidley.com