Legal Battle Unfolds Over Epogee’s Fat Alternative Following Acquisition by David Protein

Multiple companies relying on Epogee’s ultra-low-calorie fat substitute, EPG, have submitted sworn statements to a New York court, detailing the significant harm they allege due to their loss of access to the ingredient. This situation arose after Epogee was acquired by protein bar manufacturer David Protein.

Background of the Dispute

The legal issues came to light shortly after David Protein announced its acquisition of Epogee on May 29. Following the announcement, three companies filed an antitrust lawsuit, asserting that the acquisition was intended to “exclude competitors and create an artificial monopoly.”

In response, David Protein contended that it was not obligated to continue selling EPG to the plaintiffs. They argued that the companies were not direct competitors, had no long-term supply contracts, and could instead use a variety of fats and fat substitutes as alternatives.

Judicial Proceedings

Even though the presiding judge seemed to align with David on several points during an initial ruling, the plaintiffs—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—have submitted amended complaints that address the judge’s concerns.

Claims of Monopolization

The revised complaints assert that the market David aims to monopolize is not merely the protein bar or low-calorie foods markets but specifically the “global market for EPG supply.” Plaintiffs argue that EPG’s unique properties, which contain just 0.7 calories per gram, make it irreplaceable for brands built around it.

Impact on Businesses

In a second amended complaint filed on July 17, ten terminated EPG clients provided declarations indicating that they tested alternative ingredients but were unable to find functional substitutes for EPG.

Defiant Foods: A Business at Risk

McKay Fugal, CEO of Defiant Foods, stated, “Our entire chocolate-making process was designed specifically around EPG’s unique properties.” He shared that Epogee had previously announced a shortage of EPG on March 25 and that their requests for information went largely unanswered. A formal notification that EPG would cease to be supplied came on May 29, resulting in the elimination of Fugal’s options: “The termination of EPG supply does not merely force us to choose a different ingredient—it forces us to abandon our entire business.”

Moon Magic: A Significant Investment in Vain

Shawn Brown, founder of chocolate brand Moon Magic, expressed frustration about being forced to abandon markets his company helped establish after substantial investment in a production facility. “We were not given the opportunity to resume ordering EPG, which has caused significant financial loss and wasted investment,” he claimed.

Snack Owl: Loss of Product Line

Noah Bernett of Snack Owl mentioned that the company has been forced to discontinue its low-calorie kettle chips based on EPG, resulting in a loss of $70,000 worth of materials. His statement echoes the sentiments of many plaintiffs feeling the effects of monopolization.

Contentions on Supply Agreements

Ruz Safai of OWN Your Hunger criticized David’s argument that the affected firms should have secured long-term supply agreements, highlighting that potential supply agreements were never presented during their relationship. “Had Defendants offered reasonable alternatives, we would have readily participated,” he stated.

Conclusion and Next Steps

This ongoing legal battle not only reflects the complexity of corporate acquisitions but also raises questions about market competition and ingredient monopolization in the food industry. With the court’s proceedings continuing, the plaintiffs strive to reclaim their businesses while navigating the ramifications of losing access to a crucial ingredient.

Case Reference: OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods vs. Linus Technology (operating under the trade name David Protein), Epogee, and Peter Rahal, filed in the Southern District of New York on June 2, 2025. Case: 1:25-cv-04544

Further Reading

• Why spend millions on securing access to EPG if it’s so easy to replace? Plaintiffs press David Protein in amended suit
• Setback for plaintiffs in David Protein, Epogee lawsuit as judge refuses to grant temporary restraining order
• David fires back in Epogee lawsuit: ‘Plaintiffs only have themselves to blame for not signing long-term supply agreements’
• Peter Rahal, David Protein, sued over ‘bait & switch’ scheme to monopolize Epogee’s fat replacer
• Protein bar maker David acquires novel fat maker Epogee, raises $75m Series A on back of ‘explosive’ growth