Sex Enhancement Supplement Class Suit Goes Limp

Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.

By Perry Cooper

June 14 — Consumers alleging that the IntenseX supplement didn't actually provide the advertised sexual enhancement benefits may not proceed as a certified class, the Southern District of California held ( Sandoval v. PharmaCare US Inc., S.D. Cal., No. 15-738, 6/10/16 ).

The lead plaintiffs failed to prove that reliance on the advertised effects of IntenseX was common to all members of the would-be class, Judge Marilyn L. Huff wrote June 10 for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

John Sandoval and Jonathan Kanfer filed putative class claims against PharmaCare US Inc., alleging the supplement maker falsely advertised the benefits of its alleged aphrodisiac.

The court found the proposed class lacking because its likely many members weren't exposed to the allegedly misleading advertisements of the product's benefits.

The plaintiffs “did not submit sufficient evidence that the representations were material to consumers, that any significant portion of consumers shared their understanding of the effects IntenseX would have, or that others similarly found the product lacking,” the court said.

The Weston Firm and the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC represented the plaintiffs.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP represented PharmaCare.

To contact the reporter on this story: Perry Cooper in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Patrick at

Request Litigation on Bloomberg Law