Fried Frank Achieves Antitrust Litigation Victory for David Protein

Fried Frank achieved a significant victory for Linus Technology, maker of the popular David Protein Bars, when the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 2, 2026 dismissed yet again - this time with prejudice - the antitrust lawsuit filed by OWN Your Hunger LLC and Defiant Foods LLC alleging claims of unlawful monopolization and conspiracy.

Back in June 2025, the Plaintiffs accused David Protein of violating the antitrust laws by refusing to sell them a patented fat replacement ingredient used in the David bars called esterified propoxylated glycerol, or EPG, once David Protein acquired the ingredient's only supplier, Epogee, in early 2025. The Plaintiffs initially sought a temporary restraining order forcing David Protein to sell them EPG, which the court quickly denied, principally on the ground that their claim was not legally viable as pled.

The Plaintiffs subsequently made multiple further attempts to adequately plead an antitrust claim, and also sought a preliminary injunction. In February 2026, the court granted David Protein's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and denied the preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint in April 2026, which David Protein against moved to dismiss.

On November 2, 2026, the court granted David Protein's motion to dismiss the latest pleading, this time holding that the Plaintiffs had enough opportunities to try to cure the deficiencies and that the case would now be dismissed in full. The court explained that all of the Plaintiffs' claims required them to show harm to competition within a relevant market. Just as Fried Frank argued from the outset of the litigation, the Plaintiffs still had not alleged facts to show that defendants' actions were capable of resulting in such harm to competition in the market they defined - the supposed "high-CFP [Calories from Protein] protein bar" market- nor had they even properly defined the market in which they allege the supposed harms would occur. Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs' "high-CFP protein bar" market was not legally tenable because it (1) was an inconsistently defined single product market, and (2) failed to include all reasonably interchangeable substitute products - namely all protein bars.

Litigation partners Geoffrey Berman, Peter L. Simmons and Samuel P. Groner, and antitrust partner Kathy O'Neill, led the Fried Frank team, which also included antitrust partner Barry A. Nigro Jr.; litigation associates Madeline Kane, Phillip McCarthy, Dilvin Tayip and Emily Ascherl; and antitrust associate Harrisson C. Kummer.

Click here to read the decision.

This communication is for general information only. It is not intended, nor should it be relied upon, as legal advice. In some jurisdictions, this may be considered attorney advertising. Please refer to the firm's data policy page for further information.