Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: “No Sugar Added” claim truthful, despite use of concentrated fruit juice, (Mar 2, 2015)

By Bryant Storm, J.D.

Ocean Spray Cranberries’ product labels—representing “No Sugar Added” and making other nutrient claims—were not deceptive, despite the company’s use of concentrated fruit juice, because the complaining consumer knew that the products were not low calorie and the “No Sugar Added” claim was truthful, the federal district court in San Jose has ruled (Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., February 26, 2015, Davila, E.).

Juice products. Noelle Major purchased several Ocean Spray products, including: (1) Blueberry Juice Cocktail; (2) 100% Juice Cranberry & Pomegranate; (3) Diet Sparkling Pomegranate Blueberry; (4) Light Cranberry; and (5) Ruby Cherry. Major filed a lawsuit, seeking damages and injunctive relief, contending that the products’ labeling violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, false advertising laws, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and that she was deceived into purchasing Ocean Spray products. Specifically, Major alleged that the products’ labeling improperly stated that they had no sugar added, contained certain nutrient contents, and were free from artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. Major asserted that the “No Sugar Added” claim suggested that the products were low or reduced in calories, despite the fact that the Ocean Spray products were not low calorie products.

Major sought class certification, which the court denied because her claims were not typical of the rest of the proposed class. Major filed a second motion, narrowing the class certification request to consumers who purchased Ocean Spray’s 100 percent juice products. Ocean Spray responded with a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all of the claims related to the 100 percent juice products.

Judgment. The court decided the summary judgment issue first because judgment in Ocean Spray’s favor eliminated the need to decide the class certification question. Ocean Spray asserted that the products had no added sugar and that Major knew what “No Sugar Added” meant. Additionally, the manufacturer argued that Major did not suffer any injury because there was no evidence that she purchased any Ocean Spray products due to the labeling claims. The court agreed with each of Ocean Spray’s arguments. The court relied on testimony from Major’s deposition where she admitted that she did not buy the products because she thought they were low calorie products. As a result, the court found unpersuasive Major’s attempt to change her theory—“on the fly”—and contend that her lawsuit was premised on the fact that she was deceived into buying the products because she thought they were healthier than they were due to the misleading nature of the phrase “No Sugar Added.” The court reasoned that there was no basis to conclude that anything about the 100 percent juice product labels was deceptive regarding the health or healthiness of the products. Specifically, the court held that Major produced no evidence that any different label would have resolved her supposed injury.

Sugar. The court also rejected Major’s assertion that she relied on the “No Sugar Added” label to her detriment because the products contained fruit juice from concentrate. The court was unpersuaded by that position because it decided that the “No Sugar Added” claim “literally was true.” Major said in her deposition that no sugar added meant: “there’s literally nothing containing sugar that’s added to this other than the natural sugar from the fruit.” Due to the fact that her own definition was entirely accurate and conformed with the actual nature of the product, the court reasoned that Ocean Spray could not have deceived Major with a truthful advertising claim. Ocean Spray provided evidence that a distinction exists between fruit juice from concentrate (which contains no added sugar) and fruit juice concentrate (which includes added sugar). Because the 100 percent juice Ocean Spray products used fruit juice from concentrate and contained “the same ratio of water to sugar solids and other compounds that exist naturally,” and because Major presented no evidence suggesting that was not true, the court reasoned that she could not have been misled by the labeling.

The case number is No. 5:12-cv-03067-EJD.

Attorneys: Ben F. Pierce Gore (Pratt & Associates) for Noelle Major. Ricky Lynn Shackelford (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

Companies: Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.

Cases: Advertising CaliforniaNews