Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Joint Juice Litigation In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition’s advertising claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the “California Federal Class Lawsuit”). In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff’s counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the “Related Federal Actions”). These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the action on behalf of New York consumers (the “New York Case”) was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the Court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment interest, and in August 2023, the Court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $7.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award and in December 2023 Premier Nutrition filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the attorneys’ fees award. In August 2024, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the damages award affirming the trial court’s decision on liability, vacating and remanding to the trial court for further consideration its decision on calculated damages and reversing the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest to plaintiff. Premier Nutrition’s subsequent petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was denied in October 2024. On January 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s attorneys’ fees award. On February 3, 2025, the trial court entered an order awarding $0.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the trial court entered an order again limiting statutory damages to $8.3 under the due process clause. Each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award. On March 13, 2025, Premier Nutrition filed a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s merits decision. In February 2025, the court set a trial date for February 2026 in the Related Federal Action on behalf of the class of consumers in Illinois (the “Illinois Case”). Plaintiff filed a motion to apply issue preclusion from certain rulings in the New York Case to the Illinois Case. On May 2, 2025, the trial court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply in the Illinois Case on the issues of deceptiveness, materiality, the measure of damages, and the First Amendment, but not on the issues of causation, intent, or punitive damages.The seven other Related Federal Actions remain pending, and the court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except New Mexico). In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and plaintiff’s petition for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit was denied. In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed the California Federal Class Lawsuit against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers as the California Federal Class Lawsuit. In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Premier Nutrition’s motion for judgment based on res judicata and in May 2023, the Court reaffirmed its ruling. In July 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which writ was denied in March 2024. In November 2023, the Court certified the case as a class action. Trial is currently stayed pending the resolution of the appeal in the New York Case. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case. The court has not yet issued a decision. In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period. In July 2020, the court issued an order certifying a statewide class. Premier Nutrition moved for summary judgment in July 2023, which motion remains pending. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case decision. The court has not yet issued a decision. The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases and intends to appeal any adverse judgements and awards of damages. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. During the three and six months ended March 31, 2025, the Company expensed $0.9 related to the legal matter and plaintiff legal fees in connection with the Joint Juice litigation, which was included in “Selling, general and administrative expenses” on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Other than legal fees, no expense related to this litigation was incurred during the three or six months ended March 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025 and September 30, 2024, the Company had an estimated liability of $21.9 and $21.0, respectively, related to these matters that was included in “Other current liabilities” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Protein Products Class Litigation In June 2023, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against the Company and Premier Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Premier Nutrition engages in fraud and false advertising (via alleged affirmative representations and omissions) regarding its RTD protein shakes and protein powders by marketing the products as good sources of nutrition and protein when the products contain (or have a material risk of containing) high levels of undisclosed lead (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the “Protein Products Class Lawsuit”). Plaintiffs seek monetary remedies for economic injury (products are allegedly worth less than what was paid for them), as well as injunctive relief. The Protein Products Class Lawsuit alleges that high levels of lead pose serious safety risks, but does not allege that any plaintiff or putative class member suffered personal injuries and does not seek any remedies for personal injuries. The Company and Premier Nutrition filed a motion to dismiss this case in August 2023, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2024, and in August 2024 the Company and Premier Nutrition filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case, including appealing any adverse judgement or award. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the Protein Products Class Lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other than legal fees, no expense related to the Protein Products Class Lawsuit was incurred during the three or six months ended March 31, 2025 or 2024. California Proposition 65 Notice re Lead in Protein Products On June 7, 2023, the Fitzgerald Joseph LLP law firm (the same firm that filed the Protein Products Class Lawsuit) issued a 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue under California’s Safe Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) for alleged violation of Proposition 65 with respect to lead levels in Premier Nutrition’s RTD protein shakes and protein powders (this matter is hereinafter referred to as the “Protein Products Prop 65 Notice”). Premier Nutrition intends to vigorously defend against the Protein Products Prop 65 Notice. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the Protein Products Prop 65 Notice will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Other than legal fees, no expense related to the Protein Products Prop 65 Notice was incurred during the three or six months ended March 31, 2025 or 2024. Other The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and actions arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information presently known, the ultimate liability, if any, arising from such pending legal proceedings, as well as from asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, taking into account established accruals for estimated liabilities (if any), are not expected to be material individually or in the aggregate to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In addition, although it is difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of actions regarding expenditures for compliance with regulatory matters, in the opinion of management, based upon the information currently available, the ultimate liability arising from such compliance matters is not expected to be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition’s advertising claims regarding its Joint Juice line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the “California Federal Class Lawsuit”).

In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff’s counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania (the “Related Federal Actions”). These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the action on behalf of New York consumers (the “New York Case”) was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the Court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $12.9, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment interest, and in August 2023, the Court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $7.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award and in December 2023 Premier Nutrition filed its Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the attorneys’ fees award. In August 2024, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the damages award affirming the trial court’s decision on liability, vacating and remanding to the trial court for further consideration its decision on calculated damages and reversing the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest to plaintiff. Premier Nutrition’s subsequent petition for en banc rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was denied in October 2024. On January 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s attorneys’ fees award. On February 3, 2025, the trial court entered an order awarding $0.9 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 10, 2025, the trial court entered an order again limiting statutory damages to $8.3 under the due process clause. Each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the damages award. On March 13, 2025, Premier Nutrition filed a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s merits decision.

In February 2025, the court set a trial date for February 2026 in the Related Federal Action on behalf of the class of consumers in Illinois (the “Illinois Case”). Plaintiff filed a motion to apply issue preclusion from certain rulings in the New York Case to the Illinois Case. On May 2, 2025, the trial court entered an order holding that issue preclusion will apply in the Illinois Case on the issues of deceptiveness, materiality, the measure of damages, and the First Amendment, but not on the issues of causation, intent, or punitive damages.The seven other Related Federal Actions remain pending, and the court has certified individual state classes in each of those cases (except New Mexico).

In September 2020, the same lead counsel re-filed the California Federal Class Lawsuit against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers as the California Federal Class Lawsuit. In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Premier Nutrition’s motion for judgment based on res judicata and in May 2023, the Court reaffirmed its ruling. In July 2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which writ was denied in March 2024. In November 2023, the Court certified the case as a class action. Trial is currently stayed pending the resolution of the appeal in the New York Case. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case. The court has not yet issued a decision.

In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period. In July 2020, the court issued an order certifying a statewide class. Premier Nutrition moved for summary judgment in July 2023, which motion remains pending. In January 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for the application of issue preclusion arising from certain rulings in the New York Case decision. The court has not yet issued a decision.

During the three and six months ended March 31, 2025, the Company expensed $0.9 related to the legal matter and plaintiff legal fees in connection with the Joint Juice litigation, which was included in “Selling, general and administrative expenses” on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Other than legal fees, no expense related to this litigation was incurred during the three or six months ended March 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025 and September 30, 2024, the Company had an estimated liability of $21.9 and $21.0, respectively, related to these matters that was included in “Other current liabilities” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In June 2023, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of consumers against the Company and Premier Nutrition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Premier Nutrition engages in fraud and false advertising (via alleged affirmative representations and omissions) regarding its RTD protein shakes and protein powders by marketing the products as good sources of nutrition and protein when the products contain (or have a material risk of containing) high levels of undisclosed lead (this lawsuit is hereinafter referred to as the “Protein Products Class Lawsuit”). Plaintiffs seek monetary remedies for economic injury (products are allegedly worth less than what was paid for them), as well as injunctive relief. The Protein Products Class Lawsuit alleges that high levels of lead pose serious safety risks, but does not allege that any plaintiff or putative class member suffered personal injuries and does not seek any remedies for personal injuries.

The Company and Premier Nutrition filed a motion to dismiss this case in August 2023, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2024, and in August 2024 the Company and Premier Nutrition filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case, including appealing any adverse judgement or award. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the Protein Products Class Lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject to various other legal proceedings and actions arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information presently known, the ultimate liability, if any, arising from such pending legal proceedings, as well as from asserted legal claims and known potential legal claims which are likely to be asserted, taking into account established accruals for estimated liabilities (if any), are not expected to be material individually or in the aggregate to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. In addition, although it is difficult to estimate the potential financial impact of actions regarding expenditures for compliance with regulatory matters, in the opinion of management, based upon the information currently available, the ultimate liability arising from such compliance matters is not expected to be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.