To no one’s surprise, the POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court has inspired class action lawsuits against similar fruit blends. The crux of the claim is essentially the same, as highlighted in the following allegations:
Defendant strategically and purposely misleads the consuming public to believe that the Product is, or at a minimum, primarily consists of, cranberry and pomegranate juice. The Product’s label prominently displays the words “CRANBERRY POMEGRANATE,” while at the same time down plays the other words in smaller and thinner font that reveal the juice is actually a flavored juice blend from concentrate, primarily consisting of water and cheap white grape juice concentrate, apple juice concentrate, and plum juice concentrate. The names o f the cheap juices are not identified on the front of the label. Cranberries and pomegranates are prominently depicted on the Product’s label, while none of the other cheaper juices are even pictured on the Product’s label.
Plaintiff’s allege claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
Notably, the central holding of the Supreme Court’s POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola ruling is that a federal Lanham Act claim between competitors is not precluded by FDA regulations under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because these acts complement, rather than contradict, each other — and claims under the Lanham Act are thus not precluded by regulations under the FDCA. That reasoning does not apply to the Wal-Mart case which involves state law claims that do not involve competitors.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs in Wal-Mart have an entire section of their complaint titled “Plaintiff’s Claim is Not Preempted” which alleges as follows in an effort to to ride the coattails of the Supreme Court ruling while attempting to avoid preclusion.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on this issue. Plaintiff’s claim is predicated on the fact that the naming, labeling, and marketing are misleading, deceptive, and unfair according to Florida’s Food Safety Act, but only in regards to the provisions that are identical in material aspects to the FFDCA or FDA regulations already imposed by the Federal Government.
A simple reading of the plain language of the Florida’s Food Safety Act and the FFDCA shows that Plaintiffs claims do not seek to contest or enforce anything in Florida’s Act that is beyond the FFDCA or FDA regulation requirements. Instead, Plaintiff’s claims are predicated on the fact that Defendants’ naming, labeling, and marketing are misleading, deceptive, and unfair according to Florida’s Food Safety Act, but only in regards to the provisions that are identical in material aspects to the FFDCA.
Whether this contention holds up in light of any potential motion to dismiss remains to be seen. A copy of the Complaint may be found here.