Vital Proteins is one of the best-known collagen supplement brands in the United States, but its products have also been connected to Proposition 65 disputes, consumer litigation, and a past product recall. Interest in the Vital Proteins Lawsuit has increased again following newer California lead notices and a 2026 settlement involving Daily Greens.
Consumers are primarily trying to determine whether collagen products contain lead or cadmium, whether a class action exists, whether settlements provide compensation, and whether the 2023 Collagen Peptides recall was related to heavy metals.
The legal record is more nuanced than some online discussions suggest. Several separate matters are involved, and a Proposition 65 notice, a settled enforcement action, a recall, and a consumer class action are not legally interchangeable.
What Is the Vital Proteins Lawsuit?
The term Vital Proteins Lawsuit does not describe one single nationwide case. It is commonly used online to refer collectively to several legal and regulatory matters involving Vital Proteins products.
One significant case was brought by Environmental Research Center, Inc. (ERC) under California Proposition 65. ERC alleged that certain dietary supplements exposed consumers to lead and cadmium without legally required warnings. A complaint was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in May 2018, and the matter resulted in a consent judgment.
More recently, California Proposition 65 notices have targeted other products. A June 2025 notice alleged lead exposure involving Vital Proteins Daily Greens, while an August 2025 notice identified Vital Proteins Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides. The Daily Greens matter subsequently produced an out-of-court settlement dated May 5, 2026.
Separately, Mackey v. Vital Proteins, LLC was filed as a class action and later removed to federal court in Florida. That proceeding was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in February 2026.
These proceedings should therefore be evaluated individually rather than treated as one continuous lawsuit.
Why Has Vital Proteins Faced Legal Action?
Vital Proteins has encountered litigation for different reasons over the years. The legal issues are not limited to product contamination or consumer safety.
The most relevant disputes for consumers searching about collagen safety concern California Proposition 65. Proposition 65 generally requires businesses to provide warnings before exposing Californians to listed chemicals at levels that trigger the law’s warning requirements.
In the 2018 ERC litigation, the chemicals at issue were lead and cadmium, and the claim was characterized by California’s Attorney General database as a “Failure to Warn” case involving dietary supplements. The plaintiff sought warnings, civil penalties, and declaratory relief.
Other litigation involving the company has addressed unrelated subjects. For example, Vital Proteins has been involved in copyright litigation and has itself pursued false-advertising claims against a competing supplement company. Those cases should not be interpreted as evidence that its collagen products were unsafe.
That distinction matters because search results frequently combine unrelated cases under the same broad “Vital Proteins lawsuit” label.
Vital Proteins Lawsuit Update 2026
As of September 2026, several developments are particularly relevant.
| Matter | Current Status |
|---|---|
| ERC Proposition 65 case | Consent judgment entered in 2018 |
| Daily Greens Prop 65 matter | $28,000 settlement reported in 2026 |
| Whey Protein + Collagen Peptides notice | 2025 Prop 65 notice; California AG database showed no settlement in the result reviewed |
| Mackey class action | Voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in February 2026 |
| 2023 Collagen Peptides recall | Limited batch recall involving possible plastic contamination |
The most important recent development is the Daily Greens Proposition 65 settlement. California’s Attorney General database records a May 5, 2026 out-of-court settlement between APS&EE, LLC and Vital Proteins LLC. It called for reformulation or clear and reasonable warnings and listed total payments of $28,000.
Another 2025 notice identified Vital Proteins Plant Protein in addition to Daily Greens. That supplemental notice was partially withdrawn on June 1, 2026.
Meanwhile, the federal docket in Mackey shows that the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on February 1, 2026.
Vital Proteins Heavy Metals Lawsuit Explained
The heavy-metals issue is primarily connected with California Proposition 65 enforcement rather than a government finding that every Vital Proteins product contains dangerous amounts of heavy metals.
The clearest historical example is Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. Vital Proteins, LLC. ERC issued a Proposition 65 notice in November 2017 identifying lead, lead compounds, and cadmium in dietary supplements and later filed a civil complaint.
The case eventually resulted in a consent judgment imposing warning-related requirements for covered products.
Lead Allegations
Lead has been central to both historical and more recent Proposition 65 proceedings involving Vital Proteins.
ERC’s original notice identified lead and lead compounds. Under the resulting consent judgment, covered products exposing consumers above the specified daily lead threshold could not be sold into California without satisfying the agreed warning requirements.
New lead allegations surfaced through Proposition 65 notices in 2025. One identified Daily Greens, while another identified Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides.
A Proposition 65 notice is an allegation of noncompliance. It should not automatically be described as a judicial finding that a product is unsafe or that the recipient violated the law.
Cadmium Allegations
Cadmium was also specifically identified in ERC’s 2017 notice and subsequent litigation.
The 2018 consent judgment established requirements addressing both lead and cadmium. According to the California Attorney General’s settlement record, covered products exposing a person to more than the agreed daily levels could require warnings unless other provisions of the judgment applied.
The historical settlement therefore provides documented evidence that cadmium was part of the Proposition 65 dispute.
However, the more recent notices discussed in this article have principally focused on lead, rather than establishing a new broad cadmium case against all current Vital Proteins products.
California Proposition 65 Requirements
California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65, requires qualifying businesses to provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing consumers to listed chemicals above applicable thresholds or absent another legal exemption.
This is an exposure-warning law. A Proposition 65 warning does not automatically mean that a product violates federal food standards or will cause illness when used as directed.
The distinction is especially important when discussing supplements because Proposition 65 litigation frequently concerns whether adequate warnings were supplied, not simply whether trace amounts of a listed chemical could be detected.
In the ERC matter, California’s official database specifically categorizes the claim as “Failure to Warn.”
Environmental Research Center v. Vital Proteins Explained
Environmental Research Center, Inc. initiated Proposition 65 enforcement proceedings against Vital Proteins after issuing a 60-day notice on November 14, 2017.
ERC later filed Environmental Research Center Inc. v. Vital Proteins, LLC, case number RG18905420, in Alameda County Superior Court on May 17, 2018.
The dispute ended through a consent judgment rather than a trial establishing liability after contested findings.
What Did the Lawsuit Allege?
ERC alleged that Vital Proteins exposed consumers to lead and cadmium through dietary supplements without providing warnings required by Proposition 65.
The lawsuit requested injunctive and declaratory relief as well as civil penalties. California’s Attorney General database identifies the underlying claim as a failure-to-warn action.
These were plaintiff allegations. A consent judgment resolving litigation should not be described as equivalent to a jury verdict finding that every allegation was proven.
Which Products Were Covered?
The consent judgment applied to defined “Covered Products” within the litigation rather than functioning as a declaration concerning every product Vital Proteins has ever manufactured.
That distinction becomes important when comparing the 2018 case with newer Proposition 65 notices. Daily Greens, Plant Protein, and Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides later appeared in separate notices filed years afterward.
Consumers should therefore check the specific product identified in a notice, settlement, warning, or recall rather than assuming that all items sold under the brand are legally affected.
What Did the Consent Judgment Require?
Beginning August 15, 2018, the consent judgment restricted the manufacture for California sale, distribution into California, or direct California sale of covered products producing exposures above specified thresholds unless the applicable warning requirements were satisfied.
The settlement record lists thresholds of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day and 4.1 micrograms of cadmium per day for purposes of the agreed injunctive provisions.
California’s database reports total payments of $92,500, consisting of a $20,595 non-contingent civil penalty, $56,458 in attorney fees and costs, and approximately $15,447 as an additional settlement payment.
Those figures relate to that specific 2018 resolution.
Vital Proteins Lead Warning: Why Does It Appear on Some Products?
A Proposition 65 warning may appear on a product sold to California consumers when the manufacturer or seller determines that exposure to a listed chemical requires a warning under California law.
For example, publicly available product information for Vital Proteins Daily Greens has displayed a California warning stating that consuming the product can expose a person to chemicals including lead, which California identifies as causing reproductive harm.
A warning should be taken seriously as consumer information, but its legal meaning needs context.
It does not establish that consuming the product will necessarily cause an adverse health effect. Proposition 65 warning standards operate differently from federal determinations about whether a food or dietary supplement is unsafe.
The presence or absence of a warning can also change because of reformulation, testing, settlement requirements, distribution practices, or changes in the product itself.
Does Vital Proteins Still Have Heavy Metals?
There is no sound basis for stating that every current Vital Proteins product is free of detectable heavy metals—or, conversely, that every product contains them at unsafe levels.
The public legal record shows that specific products have been the subject of lead-related Proposition 65 notices. Daily Greens was identified in June 2025, and Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides was identified in an August 2025 notice.
Those notices are relevant evidence of allegations about exposure, but they are not equivalent to a comprehensive laboratory report covering the company’s entire current catalog.
Consumers seeking product-specific information should look for recent certificates of analysis or testing information applicable to the exact product and lot they purchased. The product label and California warning disclosures may provide additional information.
For health-specific questions about heavy-metal exposure, particularly involving pregnancy, children, or known exposure concerns, medical guidance is more appropriate than conclusions drawn solely from litigation records.
Recent Vital Proteins Proposition 65 Lead Claims
The 2025 notices are one reason searches about the Vital Proteins Lawsuit increased again years after the original ERC settlement.
They involve products different from those typically discussed when people refer to the older heavy-metals litigation.
Vital Proteins Daily Greens Lead Notice
On June 26, 2025, APS&EE, LLC filed a Proposition 65 60-day notice identifying Vital Proteins Daily Greens and alleging exposure to lead.
The listed alleged violators included Vital Proteins LLC, NHS U.S. LLC, Target Corporation, and Amazon.com, Inc.
That notice later resulted in a settlement with Vital Proteins. California’s Attorney General database records the settlement date as May 5, 2026 and identifies the injunctive relief as “Reformulation or clear and reasonable warnings.”
A supplemental July 2025 notice subsequently identified Daily Greens and Vital Proteins Plant Protein. That notice was partially withdrawn in June 2026.
Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides Lead Notice
A separate Proposition 65 notice was filed on August 7, 2025 by Center for Consumer Safety, LLC.
The notice named Nestlé Health Science doing business as Vital Proteins and Amazon.com Services LLC as alleged violators. The identified chemical was lead, and the listed product was Vital Proteins Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides.
The California Attorney General search record reviewed for this article listed the matter with a notice but no complaint, settlement, or judgment.
Accordingly, it would be premature to describe that notice as a successful lawsuit or completed settlement.
Vital Proteins Daily Greens Settlement Explained
The Daily Greens matter is one of the clearest recent developments because it progressed beyond a 60-day notice to a reported settlement.
California’s Attorney General database identifies APS&EE, LLC v. Vital Proteins LLC as an out-of-court settlement dated May 5, 2026.
It should not be confused with a consumer class action settlement providing automatic cash payments to everyone who purchased Daily Greens.
Reformulation or Warning Requirements
The California record summarizes the settlement’s injunctive relief as reformulation or clear and reasonable warnings.
In practical terms, Proposition 65 resolutions often allow a company to address alleged exposure issues by changing the product so that the relevant exposure falls within agreed parameters or by providing a legally sufficient California warning.
This is fundamentally different from a recall order.
The settlement record does not say that every Vital Proteins product had to be removed from stores. Its requirements concern the specific Proposition 65 matter and should be interpreted within that scope.
Civil Penalties and Settlement Payments
California’s database reports total payments of $28,000 for the Daily Greens settlement.
The reported breakdown was:
- $2,000 non-contingent civil penalty
- $26,000 attorney fees and costs
- $0 payment in lieu of penalty
These amounts should not be confused with compensation for individual purchasers.
The public settlement record does not establish a $28,000 consumer compensation fund or indicate that customers can submit claims for part of that amount.
Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides Recall Explained
Vital Proteins also faced a widely reported Collagen Peptides recall in 2023. This event is frequently mixed into discussions about lead and lawsuits even though it involved a different issue.
The recall concerned one batch of 24-ounce Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides sold through Costco. Reports stated that approximately 60,000 containers were involved.
The recall was voluntary and related to potential foreign-material contamination.
Why Were Collagen Peptides Recalled?
Vital Proteins initiated the recall because pieces from a broken blue plastic lid could potentially have entered one or more containers.
The company’s customer notice described the potential consumer risk as low and stated that no injuries had been reported. Customers possessing affected containers were told not to consume them and to return them to Costco for a refund.
The FDA classified the event as a Class II recall, according to contemporary reporting.
This was therefore a physical foreign-material concern, not the same issue raised in Proposition 65 lead litigation.
Which Batch Was Affected?
The affected product was the 24-ounce Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides container sold through Costco during April 2023.
The identifying information included:
- Batch code: 30095993HA
- Best By: 01-09-2028
- UPC: 857273008666
- Costco item: #1303463
The company’s recall notice stated that no other Vital Proteins products or code dates were affected by that particular issue.
Consumers who still possess an older container can compare these identifiers with the information printed on the packaging.
Were Heavy Metals the Reason for the Recall?
No. The 2023 recall was not announced as a lead, cadmium, or other heavy-metal recall.
The stated reason was potential foreign-material contamination caused by pieces of a broken blue plastic lid.
This distinction is important because online discussions sometimes merge the recall with the separate Proposition 65 disputes.
The historical heavy-metals litigation concerned alleged chemical exposures and California warning requirements. The 2023 recall concerned potential pieces of plastic in one specific batch. They are separate events with different legal and safety contexts.
Is Vital Proteins Safe Now?
There is no single court record that can answer whether every Vital Proteins product is “safe” for every consumer.
Current legal records show that certain products have faced Proposition 65 notices, and Daily Greens was subject to a 2026 settlement requiring reformulation or appropriate warnings. They also show that the 2023 recall was limited to a particular batch and involved potential plastic contamination.
Those facts do not support a blanket conclusion that all Vital Proteins products are dangerous. They also do not justify ignoring product-specific warnings.
Consumers should evaluate the exact product, lot, ingredient list, warnings, and current manufacturer information.
Anyone concerned about personal exposure to lead, cadmium, allergens, or another substance should discuss that concern with a qualified healthcare professional rather than relying on lawsuit reports as individualized medical advice.
Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides: What Consumers Should Know
Collagen Peptides remains one of Vital Proteins’ central products. It should not automatically be treated as identical to Daily Greens, Plant Protein, or Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides simply because all carry the same brand.
Product-specific distinctions matter when reading lawsuits and Proposition 65 notices.
For example, the August 2025 notice specifically identifies Whey Protein Powder + Collagen Peptides. That does not, by itself, establish the same allegation for every unflavored Collagen Peptides package sold nationwide.
Likewise, the 2023 recall applied to one identified Costco batch rather than the entire product line.
Consumers researching a container should therefore compare its full product name, UPC, batch or lot code, best-by date, retailer, and any California warning with the corresponding official notice.
Broad claims such as “all Vital Proteins collagen was recalled” are not supported by the recall record reviewed here.
Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides Reviews and Consumer Concerns
Consumer reviews present a mixture of positive and negative experiences, as is common with widely sold supplements.
Recent retailer listings include customers praising taste, ease of mixing, convenience, and use in coffee. Other reviews criticize particular flavors or packaging changes.
Reviews can help prospective purchasers understand taste, texture, packaging, and general user experience. They are much less reliable for determining whether a product violates Proposition 65 or contains a particular concentration of lead.
A consumer report also does not prove causation.
For legal or safety research, greater weight should be placed on official recall notices, court filings, settlement documents, laboratory evidence, and government records. Reviews can supplement that information but should not replace it.
This distinction helps prevent isolated experiences from being presented as established facts about an entire product line.
What Reddit Users Say About Vital Proteins and Lead
Reddit discussions about Vital Proteins commonly reflect the same questions appearing elsewhere online: whether collagen powders contain detectable heavy metals, what Proposition 65 warnings actually mean, and whether consumers should switch products.
These discussions can identify concerns worth researching, but Reddit posts are unverified user-generated information. A claim that someone tested a product, experienced symptoms, contacted the company, or discovered contamination should not be treated as established fact unless supporting evidence can be independently verified.
The strongest way to investigate a Reddit claim is to compare it with primary sources.
For Vital Proteins, those include California Proposition 65 records, settlement documents, court dockets, recall notices, and current product disclosures.
That approach is particularly important with lead discussions because “detectable lead,” “Prop 65 exposure,” and “unsafe under federal law” are not necessarily equivalent statements.
Is There a Vital Proteins Class Action Lawsuit?
Yes, a class action was filed against Vital Proteins, but its status requires an important qualification.
Mackey v. Vital Proteins, LLC was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 30, 2025. The federal docket identifies Hunter Mackey as plaintiff and Vital Proteins LLC as defendant and describes the removed state-court pleading as a “Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand.”
However, that case did not remain pending throughout 2026.
The plaintiff first filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on January 8. The court entered an order closing the case without prejudice on January 9. On February 1, 2026, Mackey filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Accordingly, readers should not interpret old references to Mackey as evidence that this particular class action remains actively litigated.
Mackey v. Vital Proteins LLC Explained
Mackey provides an example of why lawsuit status should be checked through a docket rather than inferred from the existence of an original complaint.
The case reached federal court after Vital Proteins removed it from state court in October 2025. Both sides demanded a jury, according to the docket information.
The docket later reflects procedural extensions for Vital Proteins to respond before the plaintiff elected to dismiss the proceeding.
What Was the Class Action About?
The federal docket confirms that the underlying filing was a class action complaint and jury demand and categorizes the nature of suit as “P.I.: Other.”
However, publicly accessible docket summaries reviewed for this article provide substantially more detail about the procedural history than the underlying factual allegations.
For that reason, the allegations should not be reconstructed or overstated from incomplete secondary summaries.
What can be stated confidently is that Hunter Mackey pursued class-action litigation against Vital Proteins, the company removed the case to federal court, and the proceeding ended through voluntary dismissal rather than a reported class-wide judgment following trial.
What Happened to the Case in 2026?
The litigation ended early in 2026.
On January 8, Mackey filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order closing the case without prejudice the following day.
The docket then records another significant filing on February 1: a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice submitted by Hunter Mackey.
“With prejudice” generally means the dismissed claim cannot simply be refiled by the same plaintiff as the same claim.
The docket summary does not establish a class-wide judgment against Vital Proteins, nor does it identify an approved consumer settlement fund.
Other Lawsuits Involving Vital Proteins
Vital Proteins has been involved in other litigation unrelated to the heavy-metal allegations.
For example, Byrum v. Vital Proteins LLC, filed in the Northern District of Illinois in June 2024, was categorized as a copyright infringement action.
Vital Proteins has also acted as a plaintiff. In litigation against Ancient Brands, LLC, Vital Proteins asserted false-advertising and unfair-competition claims involving competing collagen supplement products. A federal court order described the companies as competitors in the collagen-peptides market.
Another 2025 federal proceeding, Cole v. Vital Proteins, LLC, was categorized as an Americans with Disabilities Act matter and as multiparty/class-action litigation.
These cases illustrate why every lawsuit containing the Vital Proteins name should not be presented as a product-safety lawsuit.
Has a Vital Proteins Lawsuit Settlement Been Reached?
Yes—but the answer depends on which proceeding is being discussed.
The 2018 Environmental Research Center Proposition 65 litigation ended with a consent judgment. California records report $92,500 in total payments and warning-related injunctive requirements concerning covered products.
A separate settlement was reported in 2026 for the Daily Greens Proposition 65 matter. That agreement required reformulation or clear and reasonable warnings and involved $28,000 in total payments.
Neither figure should automatically be interpreted as money available to ordinary customers.
The Mackey class action, meanwhile, was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in February 2026. The federal docket reviewed here does not show a court-approved class settlement or consumer compensation program associated with that dismissal.
Thus, there have been settlements involving Vital Proteins, but there is no single universal “Vital Proteins lawsuit settlement.”
Is There a Vital Proteins Lawsuit Payout or Compensation?
There is currently no verified nationwide payout program identified in the records reviewed for this article that allows ordinary Vital Proteins purchasers to submit claims simply because they bought collagen products.
The $92,500 associated with the 2018 ERC consent judgment consisted of civil penalties, attorney fees and costs, and an additional settlement payment.
Similarly, the 2026 Daily Greens settlement reported $28,000 in payments, including a $2,000 civil penalty and $26,000 in attorney fees and costs.
Those figures are not advertised consumer payout amounts.
The 2023 recall did offer affected Costco customers a practical remedy: consumers with the specified recalled batch were instructed to return the product to Costco for a full refund.
Consumers should be cautious of websites claiming that a large settlement check or claim form exists unless that information can be confirmed through an official settlement administrator or court record.
Does Jennifer Aniston Still Endorse Vital Proteins?
Current 2026 reporting continues to associate Jennifer Aniston closely with Vital Proteins.
Aniston joined the brand as Chief Creative Officer in 2020 after being a longtime user. Recent June and August 2026 coverage still describes Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides as part of her routine and discusses her ongoing association with the brand.
Advertising-tracking information also continues to list Vital Proteins campaigns featuring Aniston.
Therefore, available 2026 evidence supports the conclusion that she remains publicly associated with and continues to endorse the brand.
Her endorsement, however, is a marketing relationship and should not be treated as scientific evidence concerning product safety, heavy-metal levels, or the legal merits of Proposition 65 allegations.
Those questions need to be evaluated independently through testing, regulatory information, and legal records.
How to Check Whether Your Vital Proteins Product Is Affected
Consumers should avoid assuming that a product is affected merely because the label says Vital Proteins.
Instead, check the identifying details carefully:
- Full product name: Compare the exact formula with the product named in a notice.
- Batch or lot number: This is especially important for recalls.
- UPC: Match the barcode number against official recall information.
- Best-by date: Older recalls may apply only to a specific production run.
- California warning: Check the container and online product disclosures.
- Retailer notice: Retailers may directly contact customers when purchase records identify recalled inventory.
- Official records: Verify claims through government databases or manufacturer recall information.
For the 2023 Collagen Peptides recall, for example, the key batch was 30095993HA with a best-by date of 01-09-2028.
That level of specificity prevents unrelated products from being mistakenly treated as recalled.
What Should Consumers Do If They Are Concerned About a Vital Proteins Product?
Consumers concerned about a product should first identify exactly what they own. Record the product name, lot or batch number, UPC, best-by date, purchase location, and purchase date before comparing it with official notices.
If the product matches an active recall, follow the recall instructions rather than continuing to consume it. For the 2023 affected Collagen Peptides batch, consumers were instructed not to consume the product and to return it to Costco for a refund.
For concerns about lead or another chemical, consumers can also review current Proposition 65 disclosures and ask the manufacturer for product-specific testing information.
Anyone who believes a supplement caused an injury should preserve the container, receipt, photographs, lot information, medical records, and communications with the seller or manufacturer.
Medical concerns should be discussed with an appropriate healthcare professional. Questions about individual legal rights, statutes of limitation, or potential damages require advice from a qualified attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
Read: Vegamour Lawsuit
Read: Streamate Lawsuit
Read: QC Kinetix Lawsuit
Read: Dwayne Johnson Energy Drink Lawsuit
Read: Monday Shampoo Lawsuit
Read: McDonald’s 100% Beef Lawsuit
Read: HexClad Lawsuit
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there really a Vital Proteins Lawsuit?
Yes. Vital Proteins has been involved in multiple legal proceedings, including Proposition 65 litigation, newer lead notices, and a class action. These are separate cases and should not be treated as one lawsuit.
Did Vital Proteins settle a lead case?
Yes. A 2026 Daily Greens Proposition 65 matter resulted in an out-of-court settlement requiring reformulation or appropriate warnings, with $28,000 in reported total payments.
Was Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides recalled for lead?
No. The 2023 Collagen Peptides recall involved potential pieces of a broken plastic lid in one batch. It was not announced as a lead or heavy-metal recall.
Is the Vital Proteins class action still active?
The Mackey class action is not. Federal docket records show that Hunter Mackey filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on February 1, 2026.
Can consumers get money from the Vital Proteins settlement?
No general consumer compensation program is identified in the settlements reviewed here. Reported payments primarily concern civil penalties, legal fees, and other settlement obligations rather than a purchaser claims fund.
Final Thoughts
The Vital Proteins Lawsuit story is best understood as several distinct legal and product events rather than one sweeping case. Confirmed records include the 2018 ERC Proposition 65 consent judgment, newer lead notices, a 2026 Daily Greens settlement, the dismissed Mackey class action, and a separate 2023 recall involving potential plastic contamination.
Those records establish that genuine legal disputes have occurred, but they do not support claims that every Vital Proteins product is unsafe or that all consumers qualify for compensation. Proposition 65 allegations, recalls, class actions, and consumer complaints each carry different legal meanings.
Consumers should verify the exact product and batch involved, rely on current government and court records, and preserve documentation if they believe they purchased an affected product. Ultimately, liability and compensation depend on the specific evidence, legal claims, settlement terms, and decisions made in each proceeding.
