Antitrust Lawsuit Against David Protein: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint Following Court Setback

The antitrust lawsuit involving three small food brands against David Protein has taken a new turn, as the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint after facing a legal setback in court last week.

Background of the Dispute

The conflict arose shortly after David Protein announced its acquisition of Epogee. The three plaintiff firms—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—claimed that the acquisition was aimed at “excluding competitors and creating an artificial monopoly.” They allege that they have been unable to access Epogee’s innovative fat product (EPG), which is central to their business models.

David Protein’s Defense

David Protein responded by asserting it was not legally required to continue supplying EPG to the plaintiffs. The company contended that the plaintiffs were not direct competitors and had not entered into long-term supply agreements. Furthermore, David argued that numerous alternative fats and fat substitutes were available for the plaintiffs to use.

The presiding judge sided with David Protein on several points, declining to issue a temporary restraining order that would have mandated the company to provide EPG to Epogee’s former customers pending the outcome of the litigation.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

In a renewed complaint filed on Monday, the plaintiffs addressed the judge’s concerns. They specified that the market in question is not simply the protein bar or low-calorie food sector, but rather the “global market for EPG supply.”

The Unique Properties of EPG

The plaintiffs argue that EPG, a modified fat with only 0.7 calories per gram, cannot be easily substituted in their products. They emphasized, “No ingredient is reasonably interchangeable with EPG… EPG is the only alternative fat that functions like fat. Substituting traditional fats, which contain 9 kcal/g, would require manufacturers to alter their entire business model to stay compliant with FDA regulations regarding low-calorie claims.”

Moreover, they highlight David Protein’s willingness to invest millions into acquiring Epogee as evidence that EPG is irreplaceable. The plaintiffs argue that the decision to pay around $6 per pound for EPG, as opposed to the average $2 per pound for traditional fats, supports their claim that no suitable substitutes exist.

Claims of Irreparable Harm

David Protein also claimed that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any irreparable harm stemming from its actions. In response, the plaintiffs articulated the significant damage they have incurred due to EPG unavailability. They stated that each firm constructed its business model around EPG, which serves as a crucial ingredient for offering unique low-calorie products that mimic the experience of traditional alternatives.

Since March 25, when Epogee informed the plaintiffs about EPG’s lack of availability, they have reportedly suffered severe business disruptions. For instance, OWN Your Hunger claims to have breached delivery commitments to major retail clients because of the EPG shortage, resulting in harmful reputational damage and significant financial penalties.

Financial Impact

The plaintiffs collectively claim to have lost over $449,000 in specific R&D investments related to EPG-based products, losses of more than $107,000 due to unmet customer orders, and write-offs of over $85,000 in specialized inventory. Additionally, they assert ongoing operational losses exceeding $15,000 monthly due to idled manufacturing capacities and fixed expenses without corresponding revenues.

Case Details

The case is formally titled: OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods vs. Linus Technology (operating as David Protein), Epogee, and Peter Rahal, filed in the Southern District of New York on June 2, 2025. Case number: 1:25-cv-04544.

Further Reading

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