Supreme Court Paves The Way For Lanham Act Claims Against FDA-Regulated Competitors

by Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact

Supreme Court Paves The Way For Lanham Act Claims Against FDA-Regulated Competitors

pomThe Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision last week in Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., a case pitting the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act against the beverage labeling standards of the federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act (FDCA).  Pom Wonderful, maker of 100% pomegranate juice and other pomegranate-based products, brought false advertising claims against Coca-Cola, accusing its Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry drink of misleading consumers into believing they were drinking more pomegranate and blueberry juice than they in fact were.  Coca-Cola’s drink, in reality, contains about 0.3% pomegranate juice, 0.2% blueberry juice, and about 99% apple and grape juices (which are, unsurprisingly, less expensive).

The Parties’ Arguments

As a factual matter, the dispute revolved around the manner in which Coca-Cola’s label complies with FDA regulations governing the naming of fruit juices.  Those regulations allow manufacturers to list the most characteristic flavors first even if they are not the predominant ingredients by volume.  The label in question, however, displays the words POMEGRANATE BLUEBERRY in large capital letters, followed by the phrase “flavored blend of five fruit juices,” in fine print underneath.  Pom Wonderful contended that this presentation creates a misleading impression even if it technically complies with the FDA’s mandates.

Coca-Cola argued essentially that since its label was FDA-compliant, Pom Wonderful should be barred from bringing a false advertising claim that could undermine the FDA’s authority to prescribe labeling guidelines for the protection of consumers.  Allowing private plaintiffs to use the Lanham Act as an end-run around the fact that the FDCA provides no private right of action would also, Coca-Cola asserted, threaten the national uniformity that Congress sought to establish through the FDCA.

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pom Wonderful, concluding that Coca-Cola’s label could and should comply with both the FDCA and the Lanham Act.  The decision was based largely on the statutory text, in particular, the fact that Congress had amended the FDCA to pre-empt certain state laws but had not stipulated that it should also preclude enforcement of federal laws.  Finding nothing in either statute to indicate that the FDCA was meant to preclude application of the Lanham Act, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the two statutory schemes to complement each other: “Although both statutes touch on food and beverage labeling, the Lanham Act protects commercial interests against unfair competition, while the FDCA protects public health and safety.”  Slip Op. at 11.  The Court noted that competitors engaging in the market on a day-to-day basis have a different – and perhaps “more immediate and accurate” – perspective on unfair practices than the FDA does, and the Lanham Act “draw[s] upon this market expertise” to provide an additional mechanism of protection for both competitors and consumers.  Id. at 12.  In other words, the FDA regulations provide a floor but not a ceiling for fair food and beverage labeling.

As for Coca-Cola’s national uniformity argument, the Court pointed out that “Pom Wonderful seeks to enforce the Lanham Act, not the FDCA or its regulations,” and “[t]he variability about which Coca-Cola complains is no different than the variability that any industry covered by the Lanham Act faces,” because the Lanham Act’s false advertising standards, although nationwide, are enforced on a case-by-case basis.  Id. at 13, 14.

The U.S. government had filed an amicus brief arguing for a somewhat middle-of-the-road position – one that would preclude Pom’s challenge to the name of Coca-Cola’s drink but permit claims based on unregulated aspects of its label, such as the image of the various fruits in the blend – but the Court deemed this approach likewise too restrictive of Lanham Act claims.

The Takeaway

The Court’s opinion has broad implications for manufacturers of food and beverages, which could now face many more false advertising suits.  As the Court put it in conclusion, companies can no longer claim that “because food and beverage labeling is involved [they have] no Lanham Act liability . . . for practices that allegedly mislead and trick consumers, all to the injury of competitors.”  Id. at 17.

This case is the Supreme Court’s second major Lanham Act decision this term.  As we have previously reported, the Static Controls v. Lexmark case, decided in March, clarified the standing requirements for Lanham Act false advertising suits.

- See more at: http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/#sthash.jDKDeNEg.dpuf

pomThe Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision last week in Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., a case pitting the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act against the beverage labeling standards of the federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act (FDCA).  Pom Wonderful, maker of 100% pomegranate juice and other pomegranate-based products, brought false advertising claims against Coca-Cola, accusing its Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry drink of misleading consumers into believing they were drinking more pomegranate and blueberry juice than they in fact were.  Coca-Cola’s drink, in reality, contains about 0.3% pomegranate juice, 0.2% blueberry juice, and about 99% apple and grape juices (which are, unsurprisingly, less expensive).

The Parties’ Arguments

As a factual matter, the dispute revolved around the manner in which Coca-Cola’s label complies with FDA regulations governing the naming of fruit juices.  Those regulations allow manufacturers to list the most characteristic flavors first even if they are not the predominant ingredients by volume.  The label in question, however, displays the words POMEGRANATE BLUEBERRY in large capital letters, followed by the phrase “flavored blend of five fruit juices,” in fine print underneath.  Pom Wonderful contended that this presentation creates a misleading impression even if it technically complies with the FDA’s mandates.

Coca-Cola argued essentially that since its label was FDA-compliant, Pom Wonderful should be barred from bringing a false advertising claim that could undermine the FDA’s authority to prescribe labeling guidelines for the protection of consumers.  Allowing private plaintiffs to use the Lanham Act as an end-run around the fact that the FDCA provides no private right of action would also, Coca-Cola asserted, threaten the national uniformity that Congress sought to establish through the FDCA.

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pom Wonderful, concluding that Coca-Cola’s label could and should comply with both the FDCA and the Lanham Act.  The decision was based largely on the statutory text, in particular, the fact that Congress had amended the FDCA to pre-empt certain state laws but had not stipulated that it should also preclude enforcement of federal laws.  Finding nothing in either statute to indicate that the FDCA was meant to preclude application of the Lanham Act, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the two statutory schemes to complement each other: “Although both statutes touch on food and beverage labeling, the Lanham Act protects commercial interests against unfair competition, while the FDCA protects public health and safety.”  Slip Op. at 11.  The Court noted that competitors engaging in the market on a day-to-day basis have a different – and perhaps “more immediate and accurate” – perspective on unfair practices than the FDA does, and the Lanham Act “draw[s] upon this market expertise” to provide an additional mechanism of protection for both competitors and consumers.  Id. at 12.  In other words, the FDA regulations provide a floor but not a ceiling for fair food and beverage labeling.

As for Coca-Cola’s national uniformity argument, the Court pointed out that “Pom Wonderful seeks to enforce the Lanham Act, not the FDCA or its regulations,” and “[t]he variability about which Coca-Cola complains is no different than the variability that any industry covered by the Lanham Act faces,” because the Lanham Act’s false advertising standards, although nationwide, are enforced on a case-by-case basis.  Id. at 13, 14.

The U.S. government had filed an amicus brief arguing for a somewhat middle-of-the-road position – one that would preclude Pom’s challenge to the name of Coca-Cola’s drink but permit claims based on unregulated aspects of its label, such as the image of the various fruits in the blend – but the Court deemed this approach likewise too restrictive of Lanham Act claims.

The Takeaway

The Court’s opinion has broad implications for manufacturers of food and beverages, which could now face many more false advertising suits.  As the Court put it in conclusion, companies can no longer claim that “because food and beverage labeling is involved [they have] no Lanham Act liability . . . for practices that allegedly mislead and trick consumers, all to the injury of competitors.”  Id. at 17.

This case is the Supreme Court’s second major Lanham Act decision this term.  As we have previously reported, the Static Controls v. Lexmark case, decided in March, clarified the standing requirements for Lanham Act false advertising suits.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright & Unfair Competition on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!