BSN Lawsuit
January 20, 2009
Oh no, not another BSN lawsuit! Well this particular BSN lawsuit started a few years back, when supplement giant BSN claimed to have a novel type of creatine called “Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate” (BSN calls this “CEM3″) in their 3 lead products - Nitrix, N.O. Xplode and Cell Mass. But a few supplement insiders said the CEM3 molecule was impossible to manufacture. Chatter began on the bodybuilding forums as self-professed chemists debated whether this molecule existed or not, and then one of them stepped up to challenge BSN with a lawsuit!
Michael Rivera Challenges BSN
A man named Michael Rivera decided to challenge BSN with a lawsuit on their claims of having CEM3 in their products (click HERE for more details). To do this, he launched a lawsuit against them, challenging them to refute his claim that CEM3 does not exist. To help his case, he brought a specialized chemistry professor from the University of California named Richard Chamberlin to battle BSN! According to court documents: “Chamberlin is one of the foremost experts in the study of small molecules and what they contain or could possibly contain.” Michael brought another chemical expert named Jonathan Vennerstrom to assist with the legal challenge.
Jonathan Vennerstrom Court Testimony
According to court papers, Jonathon had this to say to support the claim that CEM3 does not exist:
“… to form CEM3, one would first have to form the free base of creatine ethyl ester. And to do that you would probably start with the hydrochloride salt. In so doing, unfortunately, what instead happens is cyclization to form creatinine. So they you really – it’s really not possible to access or to form the creatine ethyl ester free base from which one would form these various salts, such as the salt with malic acid, which is the claimed structure for CEM3. It is impossible to form the free base of creatine ethyl ester. Since you cannot form the free base, it is therefore not possible to make various salts out of the free base.”
Vennerstrom testified that he based his opinion on his interpretation of a variety of laboratory test results produced by BSN and on his own test in which he followed the process described in the actual patent application filed by BSN on CEM3.
Court Verdict
“Rivera has provided sufficient circumstantial evidence at this point for the Court to find that the trier of fact might reasonably infer that the plaintiffs relied on false representations. In addition to the labels, advertising campaign, and declarations, Rivera has put forth evidence that the year after BSN starting advertising CEM3 in its products, sales of Cellmass increased 1,578%, sales of Nitrix increased 512%, and sales of N.O.-Xplode increased 177%. The trier of fact might reasonably infer that the sales increase was due to BSN’s representations regarding CEM3. In addition, the court finds that a jury could conclude that a reasonable person presented with a label listing CEM3 and/or advertisements regarding the superiority of CEM3 would have relied on those representations. Therefore, if the trier of fact finds that such representations were in fact made to the plaintiffs, an inference of justifiable reliance by each class member would arise.”
SOURCE OF NEWS STORY: NutriSuppLaw
SOURCE OF COURT DOCUMENTS: Click HERE.
Comments
12 Responses to “BSN Lawsuit”
Got something to say?
Scott,
Thank you for sharing this…
The bold, brazen truth is so desperately needed by consumers to cope with the increasingly complex rhetoric that has come to dominate the supplement industry.
It seems that since the departure of MuscleMedia and a few other truth seeking publications there’s not been enough internal, self governing.
When I read this story, I understand every element of the story. Why they would try to protect and how absolutely infuriating it can be to those with lesser resources to compete against.
I could go on and on… I I will but for now I want to thank you for doing what you do!
In Strength,
Shawn Phillips
co-founder EAS
Creator Full Strength
Wow! I guess that’s one for the little guy, huh? Of course what’s sad is that something like this will not get so much exposure so as to dissuade the average consumer from from believing the “hype” and superiority of such products. The “damage” has been done, and they are now one of the top selling brands across the board.
Thanks for stopping by Shawn! Hey, I say that you, Bill and I bring back The Natural Supplement Association and the Natural Supplement Review and expose ALL the lies in the supplement industry!
[...] But the real difference between UP LIFT and products like Super Pump 250 or NO XPLODE is the fact that it’s stimulant free. Now all the top pre-workout powders have lots of [...]
[...] bad press involved their three main products possibility not actually containing a rare type of creatine that they listed on their labels called CEM3. I first read about this on the blog Inside Bodybuilding which also gave the link to the actual [...]
In defence for N.O Explode creators and founders, I myself am using the N.O Explode but by itself no Cellmass involded at this point in time, but for instance CEM3 or no CEM3 I do have to hand to the founders and cofounders of the Dietary Supplement known as N.O Explode for creating such a supplement for maximized pumps in the gym and the results from using the said supplement. I myself started out as a skinny skeleton looking guy, I have spent about 500 dollars or more on pretty much every supplement out there and then i heard bout N.O Explode and said what the heck I have spent so much money on supplements so far and didn’t get the results i was told i would get so i bought the said supplement and yet only being on it fora short time i have noticed a big difference in mind set, intensity, focus, and last but not least endurance, strength, and pumps that i have never seen in anyother supplement I have ever taken since I have started working out. My point exactly is why take something off the market which is helping our economy bloom just that much better because CEM3 is said doesn’t Exist when it very well could who knows really all i am trying to say is that if I was asked what is the best pre-workout suplement I have ever taken is “HANDS DOWN I WOULD HAVE TO SAY N.O EXPLODE FOR TWO MAIN REASONS 1. THE FOCUS AND INTENSITY I HAVE IN MY WORKOUTS NOW AS WELL AS STRENGTH INDURANCE AND ENERGY. WITHOUT A DOUBT N.O EXPLODE IS THE MOST POTENT AMPLIFIER THAT IS OUT ON THE MARKET TODAY AND FOR FURTHER JUSTIFICATION I COMPARE IT TO BLAST CYCLE WHICH IS THE SAMETHING BUT THEY PUT ALOT OF CAFFINE IN THAT SUPPLEMENT WHICH IN MY OPINION ISN’T GOOD FOR A BODYBUILDER AT ALL AFTER AWHILE U LOOSE FOCUS AND YOUR ENDURANCE WHEN THE CAFFINE WERES OFF.” So as I come to my conclusion I am going to say this one more time why take a supplement off the market when it actually does what they say it does and what they say it does is N.O EXPLODE NOT ONLY AMPLIFIES YOUR WORK OUT WITH THAT EXTRA PUMP TO GET THE JOB DONE BUT IT ALSO SUPPLIES YOUR WORK OUTS WITH FOCUS, ENDURANCE, STRENGTH, PUMPS, AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST SIZE. Thank you for taking the time to read this I know it is a book but I have to make sure people know the truth about how the supplement works and that N.O Exploade actually does what is said it does once again I thank you for reading.
sincerely,
Nathan Alden
p.s SORRY MADE MISTAKE ON LAST ESSAY
Thanks for stopping by to visit Nathan and giving us your honest feedback on N.O.Xplode. Whether CEM does or does not exist, BSN makes high-quality products which is one of the reason’s why they’re so popular amongst bodybuilders like yourself.
[...] 9. BSN Lawsuit [...]
At the end of the day, I don’t think users really understand the intricate details of what the chemists are really debating about…nor do they care. BSN’s products, including Nitrix, outsold the competition and they’re products were purchased by consumers not because of what it contained in terms of chemical analysis, but because they probably felt the product (s) worked.
Worst yet, many people don’t even stick to one brand of supplement - they’ll usually jump from one to another by way of referral and stick with something only when they feel “a difference in their pump” or “simply look fuller”…
If they only knew the basics about nutrition first….
So is there an unequivocal final analysis on this topic? Maybe I missed it, but what was the final verdict in the case? Thanks.
Best,
Marc
I know this post is old and I don’t know if this has been answered but…who is Michael Rivera? Why did he bring on this lawsuit? What is his interest in all of this? Consumer watchdog or is there a financial interest for him in all of this?
Hi Scott, I am loking for an e-mail address to get in touch with you. I have information on another potential lawsuit that is to be filed very soon by one of our competitors, which accuses our product CON-CRET (pure, concentrated creatine) of making false claims. Yet we can back everything with real science. It’s amazing that even the good guys, companies that take all of the necessary steps to ensure that their products are safe, compliant and do what they say they do, are scrutinized in this market. We have even went through the process of having a study conducted at a major university’s medical center. Can you please provide me with your contact information so I can send you more information on this topic.
Thank you.
Colleen