A federal court in Florida has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss putative class claims alleging that the company’s representations about the effects of “5-hour ENERGY®”—five hours of energy without the crash of related products—are false and misleading. Feiner v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, No. 12-62495 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., decided May 29, 2013). According to the court, the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the elements of his consumer-fraud and unjust-enrichment causes of action.

The court also disagreed with the defendant that the name of its product could not be misleading because it is a trade name. The court said, “This argument fails because Defendant has not established that 5-hour ENERGY®’s status as a trade name—or lack thereof—has any bearing on whether that name is misleading. Therefore, the Court has no reason to disregard Plaintiff’s allegation that the name 5-hour ENERGY® conveys to the reasonable consumer that the product will provide five (5) hours of energy.”