The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of BPI Sports, LLC, affirming a lower court's decision to award attorney's fees in a case involving false advertising claims brought by ThermoLife International, LLC. This ruling, filed on August 18, 2026, affects companies involved in the dietary supplement industry and highlights the legal implications of pursuing meritless claims.
The case, ThermoLife International, LLC v. BPI Sports, LLC, No. 23-15903, originated from a series of legal disputes between ThermoLife and BPI. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards when filing claims, particularly in the competitive business landscape of dietary supplements.
Background
ThermoLife International, LLC, and its licensee, Muscle Beach Nutrition, LLC, filed multiple lawsuits against BPI Sports, a distributor in the sports nutrition market, claiming false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. The dispute began when ThermoLife accused BPI of misbranding and falsely advertising products that competed with ThermoLife's patented dietary supplements.
The initial lawsuit, known as the 2018 Litigation, was filed in December 2018 in the District of Arizona. It was one of several lawsuits ThermoLife initiated against various distributors in the same timeframe, all alleging similar claims of false advertising. BPI successfully moved to dismiss the case in November 2019, citing ThermoLife's failure to demonstrate competitive injury.
Despite the dismissal, ThermoLife continued its litigation efforts, filing an amended complaint in the same case. However, after a series of dismissals of similar claims against other defendants, ThermoLife voluntarily dismissed the 2018 Litigation in February 2020 and subsequently filed a new complaint against BPI in Florida, known as the 2020 Litigation. This new case was also dismissed with prejudice, leading to ThermoLife's appeal.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's award of $486,207 in attorney's fees to BPI, determining that the case was exceptional under the Lanham Act. The court ruled that ThermoLife's persistent litigation of claims that had been repeatedly dismissed illustrated a pattern of pursuing meritless claims. The opinion stated, "ThermoLife's persistence in litigating against BPI in light of repeated dismissals... illustrated a pattern of pursuing a meritless litigation strategy."
Furthermore, the court found that BPI was entitled to recover attorney's fees as part of costs under Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ruling clarified that attorney's fees could be considered costs if the underlying statute, in this case, the Lanham Act, allows for such an award. The court noted, "...attorney’s fees may be recovered as part of costs under Rule 41(d) if the statute underlying the litigation provides for the award of attorney’s fees."
While the court affirmed the award of fees, it remanded the case to the district court to correct a computational error, reducing the total fee award to $454,339.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for businesses involved in litigation, particularly in the competitive dietary supplement industry. The court's decision reinforces the importance of having a legitimate basis for claims and discourages the pursuit of frivolous lawsuits. Companies may now face increased scrutiny when filing claims, as repeated unsuccessful litigation could lead to substantial financial penalties in the form of attorney's fees.
The decision also contributes to the evolving interpretation of Rule 41(d) regarding the recovery of attorney's fees. It aligns with a growing consensus among various circuit courts that attorney's fees can be included as part of costs when the underlying statute allows for such an award. This could set a precedent for future cases where similar issues arise, potentially affecting how companies approach litigation strategies.
What's Next
ThermoLife may consider appealing the Ninth Circuit's decision, although details on any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.