Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—NDCal: Trader Joe’s May Be Required to Remove All-Natural Label From Apple Juice Product, (Jan 10, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Trader Joe’s Co. customers stated California consumer protection law claims against Trader Joe’s for allegedly mislabeling its apple juice product as all-natural despite containing non-natural ingredients, the federal district court in San Francisco has held (Tamar Davis Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co., January 9, 2013, Illston, S.).

Trader Joe’s customers alleged that Trade Joe’s mislabeled its Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice as “All Natural Pasteurized” and “100% Juice” despite containing one or more synthetic and/or non-natural ingredients as defined by the Food and Drug Administration. The juice lists two ingredients, “APPLE JUICE, ASCORBIC ACID (VITAMIN C).” Ascorbic acid is a chemically modified form of vitamin C used in foods as a chemical preservative produced from corn or wheat starch being converted to glucose, then to sorbitol, through a series of chemical processes and purification steps. The purchasers alleged that the labels violated the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The consumer protection claims were not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), according to the court. Trader Joe’s argued that the FDCA preempted the claims because the customers sought to impose labeling requirements that would suggest or imply that naturally occurring vitamin C is superior to synthetic vitamin C. The purchasers countered that they were not seeking additional labeling requirement, but were based on stopping Trader Joe’s from labeling its juice as “All Natural” where it actually contains synthetic vitamin C. While federal law prohibits state food labeling requirements that are not identical to federal requirements, the FDCA and California law contain identical prohibitions on false or misleading labeling. Therefore, the claims would only be preempted if the consequence of those claims implied or suggested a difference.

Trader Joe’s failed to show that the lack of an “All Natural” label would imply or suggest ascorbic acid was inferior to natural vitamin C in violation of the FDCA and FDA regulations, according to the court. The customers’ attempt to use California law to prohibit use of the “All Natural” label did not runs afoul of federal regulations because it would imply or suggest naturally occurring vitamin superiority. Federal regulations state that ascorbic acid and vitamin C may be used synonymously on food labels, but there is no law or regulation prohibiting distinguishing the two. The customers focus is removal of the “all-natural” label, not to have Trader Joe’s add “synthetic” or some other distinction noting the artificial source of the vitamin C. The absence of a label differs from the addition of positive or negative language, which is prohibited by the FDCA and FDA regulations.

The case is No. C 11-05188 SI.

Janet Lindner Spielberg (Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg) for Tamar Davis Larsen. Carla Jean Christofferson (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) for Trader Joe’s Co.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews