The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has denied the plaintiff’s request to expand the classes to include members who purchased a glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate supple- ment referred to as “Joint Juice” in either “all fifty states” or “in ten specific states.” Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., No. 13-1271 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 20, 2016). The court found that the consumer- protection statutes across all 50 states are not identical, and some conflict with California consumer-protection laws. The court further rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to expand the classes to include “ten specific states” because the defendant had “demonstrated the existence of material conflicts and that each individual state’s interest in the applica- tion of its laws outweighs California’s interest in applying its laws to certain members among the proposed ten-state group.”