A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court and reinstated a putative class action filed by a plaintiff that charged a vitamin company for false and misleading statements about the value of its vitamin E dietary supplement.

Noah Bradach had sued Northridge, California-based Pharmavite L.L.C. in U.S. District Court in Pasadena, charging that he and other consumers purchasing Pharmavite’s Nature Made Vitamin E dietary supplements had relied on the statement on its label that it “helps maintain a healthy heart,” according to Thursday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Noah Bradach on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pharmavite L.L.C.

Mr. Bradach charged the company had violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The District Court dismissed the case and awarded Pharmavite $84,862 in costs for a consumer survey it had commissioned in relation to the litigation.

In overturning that ruling, the three-judge appeals court panel’s unanimous decision said under federal law, dietary supplement manufacturers’ statements on product labels fall into one of two categories.

The first is “structure/function” claims, which allow manufacturers to display “truthful, non-misleading” statements about their supplements’ benefits.  Federal law does not pre-empt state requirements that are structure/function claims, said the ruling.

The second type of permissible categories are disease claims, which are statements that a product can “diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure, or prevent” a disease.  Federal law does pre-empt state regulations on such statements, said the ruling.

The District Court held Mr. Bradach did not have standing to assert his claims under state law because he believed the heart health statement was a disease claim, and was therefore pre-empted by federal law.

But, said the ruling, “The record does not support the proposition that Brach’s individual claims are solely premised on preempted disease claims.”

“Bradach’s testimony reflects that he had a mixed understanding” of what the vitamin E supplement would do, and understood it “to both maintain his heart health and prevent heart disease.”

“Courts have recognized that a plaintiff may have claims based on mixed motives and have allowed claims arising in part from non-preempted motives to move forward,” said the ruling, in overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the case, and asking the court to reconsider its denial of class certification.

It also held the lower court erred in granting Pharmavite’s motion to recover the cost of the consumer survey.

The case was remanded back to the District Court.