MUSH Foods Lawsuit: Are "15g Protein" Claims Questionable?

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit alleges MUSH Foods overstates the protein content in its overnight oats.

Consumers Affected: U.S. consumers who purchased Mush overnight oats.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

MUSH Foods is facing a lawsuit accusing the company of overstating the protein content in its overnight oats. Packages promote “15g protein” per serving, but the case alleges that number doesn’t reflect the true nutritional value.

California consumer Dimitra Charalampopoulou filed the complaint on August 29 in federal court, claiming MUSH misrepresents the quality and digestibility of its plant-based protein. 

She says shoppers are left with fewer benefits than the label suggests, all while paying premium prices for the product.

How the Label Doesn’t Match What’s Inside

According to the lawsuit, MUSH’s oats are made with plant-based ingredients such as oats and peanuts. While those ingredients contain protein, the quality scores are lower than animal-based sources like whey or meat.

The complaint also points out that MUSH does not include the percent daily value (%DV) of protein on its nutrition facts panel. This omission, it argues, keeps shoppers from seeing how much usable protein they are really getting once digestibility is factored in.

“Defendant’s packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression they are purchasing a premium product with complete protein value,” the lawsuit states.

Consumers Say They Paid More Than the Product Was Worth

Charalampopoulou says she regularly checks nutrition panels before buying protein products and relied on the “15g protein” claim when she purchased Mush overnight oats.

The lawsuit argues that she and other shoppers would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less, if the labels had accurately disclosed the true nutritional profile. Instead, customers paid elevated prices based on a misleading impression of protein content.

Premium Pricing Based on Inflated Protein Numbers

In the complaint, MUSH charges higher prices for its overnight oats by presenting them as high-protein, plant-based alternatives. Shoppers, the lawsuit says, believe they are paying for a protein benefit comparable to animal-based sources, even though the digestible protein is lower.

Once adjusted for quality, the oats allegedly deliver less than the 15 grams advertised, leaving customers with products worth less than the price tag.

Protein Claims Under Fire Across the Food Industry

MUSH Foods is not the only brand accused of overstating protein content.

In August, a New York consumer sued Bare Bones Bone Broth, claiming the company misrepresented protein per serving and net weight on its packaging.

A month earlier, California litigation targeted supplement maker Vital Amine. Its Ora Organic Daily Superfood product advertised “23g PROTEIN” per serving, but the lawsuit alleged it contained incomplete plant proteins that the body could not fully absorb.

These cases show a growing wave of scrutiny on how food and supplement companies market protein levels, especially in products aimed at health-conscious consumers.

In the MUSH Foods class action lawsuit, Charalampopoulou is asking the court to certify a nationwide class of consumers who bought Mush overnight oats, along with a subclass of California shoppers. 

The lawsuit asks for financial compensation for shoppers, repayment of money allegedly gained through misleading labels, a court order to stop the labeling practices, and a trial before a jury.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Charalampopoulou v. MUSH Foods Inc.
• Case Number: 22-05945
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• L. Timothy Fisher, Joshua R. Wilner, Joshua B. Glatt, and Ryan B. Martin (Bursor & Fisher, P.A.)

Do you buy MUSH overnight oats? What are your thoughts on protein claims on food labels? Share your opinion below.