Consumer Fraud

Kind Patches Class Action Over Dopamine Patches

Kind Patches Class Action Over Dopamine Patches — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Case Overview

A group of consumers initiated a class action lawsuit against Kind Patches Limited. The core allegation is that the company misrepresented its transdermal dopamine patches by advertising them as containing dopamine and offering positive neurological advantages. The plaintiffs, represented by Kristen Maggi and others, contend that the patches actually consist only of herbal extracts, such as lion’s mane mushroom and rhodiola.

The lawsuit asserts that Kind Patches' marketing strategy capitalizes on consumer interest in biohacking by selling these patches online and in retail stores. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the representations regarding the patches containing 'dopamine' and working as advertised are a sham because the herbal ingredients are not as effective as actual dopamine or a dopamine agonist delivered transdermally. The allegations include unjust enrichment and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as New York General Business Law.

The plaintiffs seek a jury trial and request monetary damages for all class members. The lawsuit is currently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the patches during the applicable statute of limitations.

Who May Qualify

Anyone in the United States who purchased Kind dopamine patches during the applicable statute of limitations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the basis of the lawsuit against Kind Patches?

The lawsuit alleges that Kind Patches falsely advertised its transdermal dopamine patches. The plaintiffs claim the patches do not contain actual dopamine and are ineffective at providing the advertised neurological benefits, instead containing only herbal extracts.

What laws are allegedly violated by Kind Patches?

The plaintiffs allege that Kind Patches violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, in addition to violating New York General Business Law.

Who represents the plaintiffs in this case?

The plaintiffs are represented by Sophia G. Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of KalielGold PLLC.

Related Cases

Samsung Smart TV Data Collection Lawsuit — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Samsung Smart TV Data Collection Lawsuit

Current
Consumer Fraud
A class action lawsuit alleges that Samsung collects and shares viewing data from its smart TVs without the users' proper consent. The plaintiffs claim this data is used to feed Samsung's advertising business.
Robocall Lawsuit Investigation for TCPA Violations — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Robocall Lawsuit Investigation for TCPA Violations

Current
Consumer Fraud
This investigation concerns potential violations of federal law related to unwanted marketing calls, including robocalls and messages using prerecorded audio. Consumers who receive such calls may be able to take legal action against the responsible companies.
Meta Misleading Consumers with Expiring AI Glasses Deals — Consumer Fraud class action lawsuit

Meta Misleading Consumers with Expiring AI Glasses Deals

Current
Consumer Fraud
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Meta used misleading email subject lines to create a false sense of urgency regarding discounts on its AI glasses. The suit claims Meta's marketing practices violate Washington state consumer protection laws.