Antitrust Lawsuit Against David Protein: Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs suing David Protein, a prominent protein bar manufacturer, have filed an urgent request for a preliminary injunction amid a high-profile antitrust lawsuit. They argue that they face “imminent permanent closure” if the court does not compel David to continue supplying them with a crucial ingredient while the legal proceedings unfold.

The Background of the Dispute

This contentious legal battle began earlier this year, following David Protein’s acquisition of the food technology firm, Epogee. Epogee is renowned for its production of an innovative ingredient known as EPG, which mimics the properties of fat while offering significantly fewer calories.

The lawsuit was initiated by three customers of Epogee, who contend that they built their businesses around EPG, only to suddenly be cut off from its supply. They accuse David Protein of engaging in anti-competitive practices that lead to an artificial monopoly.

In support of the plaintiffs’ claims, several other food companies have provided sworn statements outlining similar detriments they have faced after losing access to EPG.

Claims of Imminent Collapse

In a court filing dated November 7, the plaintiffs—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—assert that they are on the brink of failure unless David is mandated to restore their supply of EPG:

“Plaintiffs, along with many other businesses… are moribund yet recoverable, teetering at the precise inflection point where judicial intervention can still preserve competition.”

The plaintiffs highlight that without immediate relief, they face perilous outcomes such as approaching lease deadlines, job losses among skilled personnel, and difficulties in maintaining equipment.

Legal Standoff: Plaintiffs vs. David Protein

If the plaintiffs succeed in acquiring the injunction but ultimately lose the case, David Protein would only be obligated to supply a limited amount of EPG for a brief time. The company asserts it can discontinue the supply immediately if it prevails in court.

On the other hand, David Protein contests that granting the injunction would lead to the “permanent elimination of the only alternative manufacturers in multiple food categories,” presenting that competitors have struggled to reformulate viable products without EPG.

David Protein’s Defense

David Protein counters the allegations by asserting that the market in question does not exist. The company observed, “No consumer is alleged ever to have asked a grocery clerk which supermarket aisle contains EPG-based products,” emphasizing the distinct market differences among the plaintiffs’ products.

Moreover, David maintains that it is under no obligation to sell EPG as it holds the patents for the ingredient. The company claims it requires the entirety of its EPG supply to satisfy the growing demand for its own products.

In a more nuanced defense, David argues that the plaintiffs’ theory—that there was something inherently wrong with the $75 million acquisition of a company lacking profitability—fails both logical scrutiny and real-world experience.

The Science Behind EPG

• What is EPG? EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol) is a low-calorie ingredient comprising only 0.7 calories per gram, compared to regular fat’s 9 calories per gram.
• Distinct from Olestra: Unlike Olestra, EPG functions similarly to fat without the adverse side effects associated with other fat replacers.
• Low-Calorie Nature: EPG is resistant to lipase, an enzyme that breaks down fat, ensuring its calories remain largely intact.
• Labeling: On food labels, EPG can be identified as ‘EPG (modified plant-based oil).’
• Manufacturing Process: The creation of EPG involves splitting plant-based oils such as canola into glycerin and fatty acids, followed by a recombination process.

*This 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