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.