Published
March 19, 2026
Updated
September 30, 2026
California buyers of certain Quest Protein Shakes and Milkshakes may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Quest Nutrition sold them with lead above Proposition 65’s limit and without the required warning. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
What Is This Lawsuit About?
A California consumer lawsuit claims that some ready-to-drink Quest protein beverages contain lead at levels that should have triggered a Proposition 65 warning, but the products were allegedly sold without one.This is important because California's Proposition 65 requires businesses to give consumers a clear warning before exposing them to certain chemicals above the state's safe harbor limits. Lead is one of those chemicals.
Right now, this is only a lawsuit. It is not a settlement, and there is no claim form or payout available at this time.
Status
Lawsuit Filed
no settlement, claim form, or payout yet · Quest has not been found liable
Products at Issue
Quest Protein Shake & Milkshake
seven listed flavors · plaintiff says no Proposition 65 warning was provided
Claim Deadline
None Yet
no claims process exists while the case is pending
Proof Required
N/A
nothing to claim yet — save your Quest receipts in case a class is later certified
Which Quest Products Are Named?
The public Proposition 65 notice identifies seven products:Quest Protein Shake:
Vanilla
Chocolate
Salted Caramel
Coffee
Quest Protein Milkshake:
Vanilla
Chocolate
Strawberry
The notice says representative flavors tested above California's maximum allowable dosage level for lead, and it alleges the other listed flavors likely share similar ingredients or manufacturing processes.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Is Proposition 65?
Proposition 65 is a California consumer warning law officially called the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.Under this law, businesses generally must provide a clear and reasonable warning before exposing people in California to certain chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, unless the exposure is below an established safe harbor level.
In this case, the chemical at issue is lead.
What Did the Plaintiff Allege?
According to the public notice and lawsuit reporting, plaintiff Tinamarie Barrales alleges Quest Nutrition sold the listed shakes and milkshakes in California without the Proposition 65 warnings she says were required.The notice states that laboratory testing found lead in representative products above California's maximum allowable dosage level. It also says the main route of exposure is ingestion, meaning people would be exposed by drinking the products.
The lawsuit reportedly seeks restitution, injunctive relief, civil penalties, attorneys' fees, and other relief. That means the plaintiff is asking for things like money back for buyers, possible warning-label changes, and court orders affecting future sales if she wins or if the case settles later.
Quest has not been found liable, and the allegations have not been proven in court.
Why Are People Talking About the Lead Numbers?
The reporting on this case says the plaintiff claims some Quest drinks expose consumers to lead above California's daily safe harbor limit of 0.5 micrograms per day.In plain English, the argument is not necessarily that the drinks are banned. The argument is that if the lead exposure is above California's warning threshold, consumers should have been warned before buying or drinking them.
Prop 65 cases often focus on warnings and exposure levels, not on proving that a product will definitely cause illness in any one person.
Who Could Be Affected?
Based on the public reporting about the complaint, the proposed class appears to cover people in California who purchased the named Quest products for personal or household use during the relevant time period.That does not mean everyone automatically gets money. A class still has to be certified or the case has to settle before any payment process exists.
Can You File a Claim Right Now?
No. There is no settlement website, no approved settlement fund, and no public claim form at this time.If the case later settles, people who qualify could receive a notice explaining who is included, how much may be available, and how to file.
What Could Happen Next?
A few things could happen next:The case could be challenged in court and dismissed in whole or in part.
The parties could reach a settlement that includes warning labels, reformulation, money for eligible buyers, or some combination of those.
The court could also allow the case to move deeper into litigation, where both sides exchange evidence and argue about the testing, the legal standards, and whether class treatment is appropriate.
Why This Matters for Consumers
For many shoppers, protein shakes are everyday products. People often buy them because they are convenient, high in protein, and marketed as part of a health-focused routine.Cases like this get attention because consumers usually have no practical way to test a product for trace metals on their own. If a warning was legally required, the basic idea behind Proposition 65 is that the warning should be on the label so buyers can make an informed decision before purchase.
Quest faces a separate federal case filed in September 2026 over a different set of products. That suit alleges Quest markets its protein bars, cookies, candy and bake shop items as healthy while they contain erythritol, and it is covered in our Quest protein bar erythritol lawsuit report.
What Are the Important Dates?
60-Day Notice Filed: December 31, 2025
Lawsuit Filed: March 11, 2026
Current Status: Newly filed consumer lawsuit
Settlement Deadline: None currently
Claim Deadline: None currently
Case Information
Caption: Tinamarie Barrales v. Quest Nutrition, LLC
Case Number: 26STCV07966
Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - Central District
Defendant: Quest Nutrition, LLC
Plaintiff: Tinamarie Barrales
Plaintiff Attorney: Trevor Flynn
Legal Theory: Alleged Proposition 65 failure to warn about lead exposure
Chemical at Issue: Lead
Public Notice Number: AG No. 2025-05232
60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue
Current Status: No settlement website or claim form has been identified as of publication.
Sources
• California Department of Justice Proposition 65 60-Day Notice, AG No. 2025-05232• Public docket reporting for Tinamarie Barrales v. Quest Nutrition, LLC, No. 26STCV07966, Los Angeles County Superior Court
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
