Class Action

Armstrong, FRS Products

August 2014: The second appeal was voluntarily dismissed, the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

May 2014: One of the named plaintiff’s appeals was dismissed because he did not show why the appeal was not duplicative of the other pending appeal. (Case No. 15-5517, 9th Cir.)

March 2014: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the February 2014 dismissal order. (Case No. 14-55417, 9th Cir.) Later in March, a federal judge dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. the district court case after the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. The named plaintiff then filed a second Notice of Appeal regarding the March 2014 dismissal order. (Case No. 14-55492, 9th Cir.)

February 2014: A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Armstrong finding, among other things, that the marketing claims at issue were “non-actionable puffery” (i.e., claims that no reasonable consumer would take at face value) and unquantifiable.  The dismissal was When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled. plaintiffs have until March 18, 2014 to fix the deficiencies and file an amended complaint.

February 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Lance Armstrong in February 2013 claiming that the seven time Tour de France winner duped consumers into buying his endorsed sports supplement — FRS — by misleadingly advertising the supplement as his “secret weapon” to his cycling success. (Robert Martin v. FRS Co., Oak Investment Ptnrs., and Lance Armstrong, Case. No. 2:13-cv-01456, C.D. Cal.)


The Latest


Show More