Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING NEWS: Jury clears Coca Cola of POM’s $77M juice mislabeling claims, (Mar 23, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Following a six-day trial, a jury in Los Angeles on March 21 found that POM Wonderful did not prove that the label or packaging of Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid® pomegranate juice beverage misled a substantial portion of consumers (POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company, Case No. 2:08-cv-06237).

POM Wonderful LLC is the largest grower of pomegranates in the United States and markets its POM WONDERFUL® brand of bottled pomegranate juice and pomegranate juice blends. In 2007, The Coca Cola Company announced its version of a pomegranate blueberry juice blend. In 2008, POM sued Coca Cola in the federal district court in Los Angeles, asserting violations of the Lanham Act. Specifically, POM alleged that Coca Cola deceptively advertised its Minute Maid juice blend by displaying the words “pomegranate blueberry” with far more prominence than other words on the label, which shows the juice to be a blend of five juices. The juice actually contained only 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice. The name, label, marketing, and advertising of the juice allegedly misled consumers about the contents of the juice and caused POM to lose sales of over $77.5 million.

The district court held that POM’s claims regarding the name and label of Coca Cola’s juice product were barred by the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA). The Ninth Circuit held that POM was precluded from asserting the Lanham Act false advertising claims because it would create a conflict with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations and the FDCA. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a private party may bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a food label regulated by the FDCA. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision, finding that the FDCA did not preclude Lanham Act claims based on deceptive food and beverage labeling. The decision allowed POM’s lawsuit to proceed.

In a unanimous special verdict, the jury found that POM did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the labeling and packaging of Coca Cola’s juice product, even if literally true, deceived a substantial portion of consumers.

Attorneys: Andrew Steven Clare (Loeb And Loeb LLP) and Daniel A. Beck (Roll Law Group PC) for POM Wonderful LLC. Jeffrey A. Rosenfeld (DLA Piper LLP) and Sarah E. Zgliniec (Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP) for The Coca Cola Company.

Companies: POM Wonderful LLC; The Coca-Cola Company

News: Advertising CaliforniaNews