Solgar Formula VM-75 Vitamin B6 Putative Class Action, Nestlé Accused of Selling Multivitamins With “Dangerous” B6 Levels

A new putative class action says Solgar’s Formula VM-75 multivitamin contains dangerous levels of vitamin B6. The case, Higgins et al. v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. et al., was filed on Wednesday, October 21, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. According to Law360, it alleges the supplement contains B6 levels that can raise the risk of peripheral neuropathy, a nerve condition, or make it worse. Law360 describes it as a false advertising case.

These are allegations only. No court has ruled on them, no class has been certified, and Nestlé has not been found to have done anything wrong. I could not review the complaint itself, so this article relies on the public docket, Law360’s report and public information on the product and the science.

Higgins v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings Quick Facts

Item	Detail
Case	Higgins et al. v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. et al.
Case number	2:2026-cv-13703
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Filed	October 21, 2026
Named plaintiffs	Charles Higgins and Vishal Shah
Defendants	Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. and Nestlé S.A. (Solgar is a Nestlé brand)
Plaintiffs’ firms (per Law360)	Lieff Cabraser and Seeger Weiss
Product	Solgar Formula VM-75
Core allegation	The product contains levels of vitamin B6 that can raise the risk of peripheral neuropathy or worsen it, and is allegedly misleadingly marketed
Type of case	Proposed false advertising class action; the docket classifies it as personal injury and product liability
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form	None
Status	Newly filed. Summonses issued October 21. No ruling and no response from Nestlé found.

The docket details come from the public federal docket. The description of the allegations comes from Law360’s report. Which statutes the complaint relies on, the proposed class definition and the relief sought are not confirmed.

What the Solgar Formula VM-75 Label Says About Vitamin B6

Solgar’s current product page for the vegetable-capsule version lists 75 mg of vitamin B6 (as pyridoxine HCl) in a daily serving of two capsules, shown as 4,412% of the Daily Value. Labels can differ between the tablet and capsule versions, so check the bottle you own.

For comparison:

• The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements says adults ages 19 to 50 need about 1.3 mg of B6 a day. The figure is 1.7 mg for men over 50 and 1.5 mg for women over 50.
• The NIH lists an adult upper intake level of 100 mg a day from all sources: food, drinks and supplements combined. The limit was set by the National Academies’ Food and Nutrition Board. VM-75’s 75 mg is below that figure.
• In 2023 the European Food Safety Authority set the adult upper limit at 12 mg a day. Its opinion describes the link between excess B6 and peripheral neuropathy as well established.

The label shows a dose many times what adults generally need, but below the U.S. upper limit and well above the European one. A recommended daily amount is not a safety cap, and a high percentage of the Daily Value does not by itself prove a product breaks U.S. law. A product can meet the U.S. limit and still be challenged over how it is labeled or marketed. Whether Solgar’s marketing was false or misleading is what a court would have to decide.

Related article: Starbucks Moves to Dismiss Brazilian Coffee Workers’ Forced Labor Putative Class Action in Washington Federal Court

What the Solgar B6 Lawsuit Alleges, as Reported

Law360’s summary says the suit alleges Solgar VM-75 supplements contain dangerous levels of vitamin B6 that can heighten the risk of developing peripheral neuropathy or worsen it. The allegations do not establish that Nestlé knowingly sold an unsafe product, that either named plaintiff developed nerve damage, or that everyone who took the supplement was harmed.

What Peripheral Neuropathy Is and Why Vitamin B6 Is Relevant

Peripheral neuropathy is damage to nerves outside the brain and spinal cord. Symptoms can include numbness, tingling, burning pain and problems with balance or coordination. The NIH says taking high amounts of B6 from supplements over a long time can cause severe nerve damage. It also lists other effects of excess intake, including skin problems, sensitivity to sunlight, nausea and heartburn. In some cases symptoms improve after a person stops taking the excess supplement, though recovery varies.

That is the health concern behind the lawsuit. Evidence that too much B6 can harm nerves does not automatically show that this product harmed anyone or that Nestlé broke the law.

Information Not Available About the Solgar Lawsuit

I could not confirm:

• Where the plaintiffs live
• Which VM-75 versions are covered (the line includes tablets and capsules)
• Which statutes are pleaded
• Whether it seeks money, a label change or both
• How the proposed class is defined

Laws and Legal Questions in the Solgar Vitamin B6 Case

State Consumer Protection and False Advertising Laws

Cases described as false advertising are usually brought under state consumer-protection statutes. New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., is a common vehicle in the District of New Jersey, but I could not confirm which statutes this complaint uses. The key questions would be what the label and marketing said, what a reasonable consumer would understand, and whether any statement was false or misleading.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and DSHEA

Dietary supplements are regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). The FDA does not approve supplements for safety before they are sold. Companies are responsible for making sure their products are safe and properly labeled. The FDA can act against products that are adulterated or misbranded.

Under 21 U.S.C. § 342(f), a supplement can be treated as adulterated if it presents a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under the conditions of use on its label. Labeling is governed by 21 U.S.C. § 343 and the supplement facts rules in 21 C.F.R. § 101.36. The FDCA has no private right of action, 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), so private plaintiffs usually sue under state law. Defendants often argue that federal law preempts state labeling requirements that are not identical to federal ones, 21 U.S.C. § 343-1.

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45 and 52

The FTC Act bars deceptive advertising, including for dietary supplements. The FTC enforces it, and private plaintiffs cannot sue directly under it. It is background law and not a claim in this case unless the complaint says so.

Article III Standing and Rule 23

Federal courts require plaintiffs to show a concrete injury. In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), the Supreme Court held that class members need standing to recover damages, and that a risk of future harm alone is generally not enough for damages. Claims that a supplement raises the risk of nerve damage can raise standing questions for people who say they had no symptoms. Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and a motion to dismiss by Rule 12.

Is Solgar VM-75 Being Recalled?

No recall has been reported in the sources I reviewed. A lawsuit is not a recall, and the docket records the complaint, not any agency order. I did not find an FDA recall notice tied to this lawsuit, but that is not a guarantee none exists. Check the FDA’s recall and safety-alert pages for current status.

If you think a supplement caused you a health problem, you can report it to the FDA through its MedWatch program.

What to Watch in the Nestlé Solgar Case

• Nestlé’s response. I found no public statement. A motion to dismiss is a common first step.
• Arbitration. Solgar’s website terms of use reportedly contain an arbitration clause and a class action waiver. Whether that would reach people who bought VM-75 from a retailer is an open question I cannot answer from the record.
• The complaint itself. Once the allegations on dosage, labeling and injury are available, this article will need updating.

Solgar VM-75 Lawsuit Timeline

Date	Event
October 21, 2026	Charles Higgins and Vishal Shah file the proposed class action in New Jersey federal court
October 21, 2026	Clerk issues summonses to Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. and Nestlé S.A.
October 22, 2026	Law360 reports the suit
October 23, 2026	No ruling, class certification order or settlement found

Can Consumers Join the Solgar Vitamin B6 Lawsuit?

There is no settlement, claim form or payout, and the case is at its earliest stage. If a class is certified, notice would follow. Do not give personal information to websites promising a payment for this case.

For other consumer supplement suits, see Vital Proteins Collagen Peptides Lawsuit, What Consumers Need to Know About Heavy Metal Allegations, Unilever / SmartyPants Class Action Claims Children’s Vitamins Falsely Advertise Fiber and Nutrient Content and Bucked Up Class Action Lawsuit, Ruchman v. DAS Labs Alleges Protein Drinks Contain Less Than 25 Grams. Each involves different products and allegations and does not decide the Solgar case.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Solgar Formula VM-75 Vitamin B6 Lawsuit

Who filed the Solgar vitamin B6 lawsuit?

Charles Higgins and Vishal Shah, according to the public docket. Law360 lists Lieff Cabraser and Seeger Weiss on the case.

Who is being sued?

Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. and Nestlé S.A.

Is the Solgar VM-75 lawsuit a certified class action?

No. It is a putative class action. No class has been certified.

Is Solgar VM-75 proven to cause nerve damage?

No. The lawsuit alleges the B6 level can raise the risk of peripheral neuropathy or worsen it. The court has not found that the product caused nerve damage or that Nestlé violated any law.

How much vitamin B6 is in Solgar VM-75?

The vegetable-capsule product page lists 75 mg per serving of two capsules, or 4,412% of the Daily Value. Check your own bottle, since versions can differ.

Is 75 mg above the U.S. upper limit for vitamin B6?

No. The NIH lists 100 mg a day as the adult upper limit from all sources combined. The European Food Safety Authority set a lower limit of 12 mg a day in 2023. This article does not say which figure is correct, and the lawsuit’s allegations are untested.

What should people who take Solgar VM-75 do?

Check the label on your exact product and add up B6 from all supplements and fortified foods. Talk to a doctor or pharmacist before changing what you take, and especially if you have numbness, tingling or burning sensations. This is general information, not medical advice.

Has Nestlé responded or settled?

I found no public response and no settlement.

Official Sources and Legal References

1. Docket, Higgins et al. v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 2:2026-cv-13703 (D.N.J.): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2026cv13703/611123
2. Law360, “Nestle’s Solgar Has Dangerous Vitamin B6 Levels, Suit Says” (Oct. 22, 2026), summary only: https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/2541260
3. Solgar, Formula VM-75 Vegetable Capsules product page: https://www.solgar.com/products/formula-vm-75-vegetable-capsules
4. NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Vitamin B6 Consumer Fact Sheet: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminb6-consumer/
5. NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Vitamin B6 Health Professional Fact Sheet: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB6-HealthProfessional/
6. EFSA, Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin B6 (2023): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10189633/
7. FDA, Questions and Answers on Dietary Supplements: https://www.fda.gov/food/information-consumers-using-dietary-supplements/questions-and-answers-dietary-supplements
8. 21 U.S.C. § 342: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/342

General legal and health information, not legal or medical advice. The allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and Nestlé has not been found liable. Ask a healthcare provider about your own supplement use.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the public federal docket for Higgins v. Nestlé Health Science US Holdings (D.N.J. No. 2:2026-cv-13703), Law360’s October 22, 2026 report, Solgar’s published product label, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements B6 fact sheets and EFSA’s 2023 vitamin B6 opinion, as of October 23, 2026. Last Updated: October 23, 2026.