POM Wonderful: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Lanham Act False Advertising Claims Not Precluded by FDA Statute

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP

On June 12, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12-761, which confirms that federal false advertising claims can be brought against false or misleading advertising for beverage products regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. The Court held that the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not preclude private enforcement remedies under the Lanham Act.

Background of the Case

POM Wonderful, the marketer of a line of pomegranate juices, including a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend, had brought suit against Coca-Cola Co. under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, alleging that the name, label graphics and marketing of one of Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid juice blends would mislead customers into believing that the product consisted predominantly of pomegranate and blueberry juice, when it actually consisted primarily of less expensive apple and grape juices. The labeling prominently displayed the words “pomegranate blueberry,” with smaller font type stating that the product was a “flavored blend of 5 juices.” In fact, the product contained only 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice – characterized by the Court as a “miniscule amount.” The graphics on the labeling depicted a “vignette of blueberries, grapes and raspberries in front of a halved pomegranate and a halved apple.”

The District Court did not adjudicate POM Wonderful’s false advertising claim on the merits. It granted partial summary judgment to Coca-Cola, holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which prohibits the misbranding of food and beverages, precluded Lanham Act challenges to the name and labeling of Coca-Cola’s juice blend. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court, in an 8-0 unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kennedy (with Justice Breyer recused), reversed the 9th Circuit’s decision. The Court held that the FDCA and the Lanham Act’s provisions on false advertising are complementary, such that false advertising claims can still be brought by competitors even when the claims involve advertising in industries regulated by FDA. The decision reaffirms the broad protection federal law affords against false advertising and makes clear that participants in industries regulated by FDA are not immunized from liability for false advertising under federal law.

The principal reasons for the conclusion reached by the Court were:

The Issue is Preclusion, Not Pre-emption – Justice Kennedy explained that the principle of pre-emption was not involved in the decision, because pre-emption comes into play only when determining whether a state law is pre-empted by a federal statute or agency action. Here, the issue was whether a cause of action under one federal statute was precluded by another federal statute. The Court concluded that the Lanham Act did not expressly forbid or limit claims against product labeling regulated by the FDCA. Likewise, the FDCA, “by its terms, does not preclude Lanham Act suits.” Indeed, as Justice Kennedy observed, the two statutes have co-existed for almost 70 years.

The Lanham Act and the FDCA are Complementary – According to the Court, the two federal statutes are complementary, and “it would show disregard for the congressional design to hold that Congress nonetheless intended one federal statute to preclude the operation of the other.” The cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act is primarily for the benefit of competitors, although consumers may benefit from the Act’s proper enforcement. In contrast, “the FDCA statutory scheme is designed primarily to protect the health and safety of the public at large,” including through the prohibition of selling misbranded food and drinks.

The two federal statutes were also described as complementary with respect to enforcement remedies. Enforcement of the FDCA is “largely committed to the FDA,” but the agency “does not have the same perspective or expertise in assessing market dynamics that day-to-day competitors possess.” Competitors will have an awareness of unfair competition practices that “may be far more immediate and accurate than that of agency rulemakers and regulators,” and the Lanham Act draws upon this “market expertise.” The Court found it noteworthy that FDA does not pre-approve food and beverage labels, and instead relies on after-the-fact enforcement actions, warning letters and other measures. Because FDA does not necessarily pursue all violations, if Lanham Act claims were precluded, then “commercial interests – and the public at large – could be left with less effective protection in the food and beverage labeling realm than in many other, less regulated industries.”

Allowing Lanham Act Claims Will Not Impair National Regulatory Uniformity – As Justice Kennedy commented, the national uniformity of food and beverage labeling will not be disrupted by permitting Lanham Act claims to co-exist with FDCA enforcement, since claimants like POM Wonderful are seeking to enforce the Lanham Act, not the FDCA or its regulations. Moreover, while the application of the Lanham Act by different judges and juries throughout the country “may give rise to some variation in outcome, this is the means Congress chose to enforce a national policy to ensure fair competition.” Further, the Lanham Act is itself uniform in extending protection against unfair competition; it is variable only to the extent that the rights afforded by the Act are enforced on a case by case basis, as would be the case for the products of any industry covered by the Lanham Act.

The FDCA is Not a Ceiling on the Regulation of Food and Beverage Labeling – The Court specifically rejected the assumption made by Coca-Cola and the Government (which submitted its own Amicus Curiae brief) and held that the FDCA and its regulations are not a “ceiling on the regulation of food and beverage labeling.” The Court concluded that just because food and beverage labeling is involved does not mean that a manufacturer or advertiser has no Lanham Act liability “for practices that allegedly mislead and trick consumers, all to the injury of competitors.”

* * * *

The case has been remanded back to the District Court, and POM Wonderful will now have the opportunity to try to prove its allegations that Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid product name and labeling was misleading to consumers.

Take Aways

  • The Supreme Court endorsed the robust use of Section 43(a) Lanham Act claims to address false advertising that is causing competitive harm.

  • The holding that the FDCA does not preclude private Lanham Act enforcement claims against beverage advertising is highly likely to be applied to other product categories regulated by FDA, such as food, cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs.

  • The POM Wonderful analysis of complementary federal statutory schemes may apply to permit false advertising claims against products and services regulated by other federal statutes, such as in the areas of insurance, product safety and securities.

  • Because the POM Wonderful decision did not involve a pre-emption issue applicable to state statutes and remedies, the Court’s decision does not have any direct bearing on state consumer class actions for food mislabeling, although it might serve to encourage wider use of such lawsuits.

  • When Justice Kennedy remarked from the bench during oral argument that he was misled by the Minute Maid product labeling, it didn’t bode well for Coca-Cola’s chances of winning the case.


Written by:

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Dorsey & Whitney LLP 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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.