Christine Vitello v. Natrol, LLC

Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-3150

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; October 6, 2022; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case No. 21-3150 involves Christine Vitello, who filed a lawsuit against Natrol, LLC, under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) after purchasing Cognium, a nutraceutical advertised to improve memory and concentration. The MMPA prohibits deceptive practices in merchandise sales and allows consumers to seek damages for losses resulting from such practices. Vitello claimed she suffered an ascertainable loss due to Natrol's misrepresentation regarding the product's effectiveness, particularly in light of clinical studies that the company cited.

The district court ruled that Vitello did not experience an ascertainable loss because the product's packaging explicitly stated that it did not guarantee the desired benefits. The court granted Natrol's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Vitello’s claims of MMPA violations and unjust enrichment. Vitello appealed this decision. Upon de novo review of the summary judgment, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing the importance of the disclaimers on the product packaging, which informed consumers of the product's limitations and advised consultation with healthcare professionals. Vitello had purchased Cognium without professional guidance and reported no improvement in memory or concentration after using it.

In June 2018, Vitello initiated a class action lawsuit against Natrol, claiming damages and the establishment of a National Class and a Missouri Consumer Subclass based on allegations that Natrol failed to disclose retractions of two clinical studies supporting its product, Cognium. Vitello asserted she would not have purchased Cognium had Natrol informed consumers about these retractions, which included serious allegations of data fabrication. She raised claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and for unjust enrichment. After filing, Natrol issued a refund for Vitello’s purchase, which she refused to cash.

Procedurally, the district court denied Natrol’s motion to dismiss, finding sufficient factual allegations to support Vitello's claims. Following discovery focused on class certification, Vitello sought class certification but faced opposition from Natrol, which moved for summary judgment on her individual claims. The court found that Vitello's deposition admissions—specifically, that she used Cognium as a substitute for prescribed Adderall without medical consultation—negated her ability to prove her claims under the MMPA and for unjust enrichment. Consequently, the court denied Vitello's request for additional discovery, ruled on Natrol's summary judgment motion, and granted summary judgment in favor of Natrol, dismissing Vitello’s individual claims and the class action. 

On appeal, Vitello contended that the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment regarding her MMPA and unjust enrichment claims. Specifically, she alleged that Natrol's failure to disclose the retracted studies constituted a violation of the MMPA, claiming she would not have purchased the product if accurate information had been provided and highlighting that she did not experience the claimed cognitive benefits. The appeal centers on the ascertainable loss element required for a private right of action under the MMPA.

Missouri courts interpret the ascertainable loss element of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) claim by incorporating the 'benefit of the bargain' rule from common law fraud. This rule allows a prevailing party to recover the difference between the product's represented value and its actual value. The district court ruled that Vitello could not prove an ascertainable loss based on Natrol’s uncontroverted material facts and her sworn statements. Vitello acknowledged her ADD diagnosis and her reliance on Adderall, which was prescribed for her condition. She stopped taking Adderall without consulting her doctor, hoping Cognium would be a better alternative, despite knowing it was not intended to replace her prescription medication. The court found that the product's packaging explicitly stated it was not meant to treat any disease and advised consulting healthcare providers. Thus, Vitello could not argue that she suffered an ascertainable loss for a product that was never represented as a substitute for her medication. Her experience with Cognium was consistent with its advertised purpose, leading the court to conclude that her claim under the MMPA did not succeed, as the actual value of Cognium was equivalent to its represented value. The reasoning aligns with Missouri MMPA precedent, as illustrated by a similar case where the plaintiff failed to show a loss from a product that performed as advertised.

Vitello cannot establish ascertainable loss under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) due to the inapplicability of the benefit of the bargain rule. Despite her arguments suggesting a triable issue regarding her purchasing decision influenced by retracted studies, this does not demonstrate the necessary loss. Vitello's reliance on case law asserting that certain defenses cannot defeat MMPA claims is misplaced, as Natrol does not invoke disclaimers as a defense. Even assuming Natrol's claims about clinical studies were unlawful, Vitello still fails to show ascertainable loss. The district court's interpretation aligns with the MMPA’s intent to promote honesty in transactions and does not conflict with contract law principles. 

Regarding her unjust enrichment claim, Vitello must prove that Natrol was enriched at her expense and that it would be unjust for Natrol to retain this benefit. Although Natrol benefited from the purchase price of Cognium, the court found that Vitello's purchase decision was not tied to Natrol's alleged misconduct, thus failing the "unjust" requirement. Additionally, Vitello's refusal of a refund check may undermine her unjust enrichment claim. Ultimately, the district court's judgment is affirmed.