Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Court rules for Pom Wonderful against Coke
Advertising » Supreme Court allows company to pursue suit against Coke for false advertising.
First Published Jun 12 2014 02:52 pm • Last Updated Jun 12 2014 02:52 pm

Washington • Coca Cola’s version of pomegranate juice is not quite the real thing, and a competitor has another chance to prove it in court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with juice maker Pom Wonderful in its long-running false advertising dispute with the Coca-Cola Co., a decision that could open the door to more litigation against food makers for deceptive labeling.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The justices ruled 8-0 that Pom can go forward with a lawsuit alleging the label on a "Pomegranate Blueberry" beverage offered by Coke’s Minute Maid unit is misleading because 99 percent of the drink is apple and grape juice.

Lower courts had ruled in favor of Coke because the label conforms to the law and to Food and Drug Administration rules. But the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the juice label may technically comply with FDA rules but may still mislead consumers for different reasons.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court’s opinion, appeared to have telegraphed his position back in April when he said at oral argument that the label even misled him into thinking the drink was mostly pomegranate juice. His opinion Thursday focused on the juice’s details, noting that the product contained only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice, 0.2 percent blueberry juice and 0.1 percent raspberry juice.

Kennedy said the law governing regulation of food and drug labels does not preclude a competitor to sue under a different law for unfair competition based on false or misleading claims. He said federal food and trademark laws complement each other in the regulation of misleading labels.

Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in the case.

The court also rejected Coke’s argument that allowing a deceptive labeling claim would interfere with national uniformity under FDA laws. Kennedy said Congress chose to allow challenges under trademark law "to enforce a national policy to ensure fair competition."

Pom, which faces deceptive advertising claims of its own, filed its lawsuit against Coke in 2008 after it began losing market share to Minute Maid’s "Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices" drink. The drink’s label shows the words "Pomegranate Blueberry" in much larger type than the rest of the phrase and includes a prominent picture of large pomegranate set among other fruits.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Coke, finding that food labeling laws preclude private lawsuits under trademark law.


story continues below
story continues below

The food and beverage industry had expressed concerns that a ruling for Pom would lead to greater uncertainty about labeling requirements and lead to a flurry of new lawsuits.

Coke’s lawyer claimed during oral arguments that it would be a "logistical nightmare" for food companies to have to change labels in response to every private lawsuit. The beverage giant says the federal government, not competitors, should be enforcing uniform label requirements.

Kennedy acknowledged that allowing trademark claims to be decided by judges and juries in courts around the country "may give rise to some variation in outcome." But he said "this is the means Congress chose to enforce a national policy to ensure fair competition."

Claudia Vetesi, a San Francisco attorney specializing in false advertising class action lawsuits, said the decision could lead to an increase in "business to business litigation" over food labeling.

"Now a company could make sure its label complies with FDA regulation, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get sued," said Vetesi, who is not involved in the case. "This chips away at the primacy of the FDA."

In a separate case, the federal government has filed a deceptive advertising case against Pom for claiming that its pomegranate juice can treat or prevent heart disease, prostate cancer and other illnesses. The Federal Trade Commission’s action is pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.