Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FALSE ADVERTISING NEWS—Class Action Filed Against 7UP Maker for Misleading Labeling, (Nov 13, 2012)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A class action complaint has been filed against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. in the federal district court in Los Angeles for misleading consumers about the nutritional qualities, ingredients, and health benefits of its 7UP brand name products (David Green v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., November 8, 2012). The purported class representative filed California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims against the manufacturer.

California resident David Green alleged that he purchased 7UP brand products that were labeled as containing antioxidants. Combining the word antioxidant with images of real cherries or berries allegedly misled purchasers into believing that the products provided the health benefits associated with the antioxidants in real cherries or real berries. Green argued that he would not have paid the premium price charged by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group for the products had the company not misled him into believing the products contained real cherries or real berries and that the products’ antioxidant content was not derived from real cherries or real berries, or even extracts from those fruits.

The plaintiff charged that the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group fortified the products with an isolated antioxidant but that the only antioxidant contained in the products, Vitamin E, was minimal. He also alleged that the products do not contain real fruit and do not provide the health benefits that reasonable consumers associate with antioxidants.

Green claimed that the manufacturer violated the CLRA by falsely representing the qualities of its products. The complaint also alleged that the manufacturer’s marketing, advertising, and labeling violated the California Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetics Law and used misleading labeling and advertising likely to deceive reasonable California consumers in violation of the UCL. Finally, the complaint alleged that the manufacturer violated the FAL by knowingly using false and misleading advertising to induce purchasers to buy its 7UP products.

The action sought an order certifying the proposed class, awards of restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

The complaint is No. CV 12-09567.

Michael R. Reese (Reese Richman LLP) for David Green.

News: Advertising