Pom Wonderful v. Coca Cola

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The Supreme Court recently released its decision in Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Co.

Pom Wonderful, which sells an array of pomegranate juices, sued Coca Cola for alleged unfair competition due to false and misleading product descriptions. In short, Pom alleged that Coke's description of one of its "Minute Maid" juices, labelled as "pomegranate blueberry," was false and misleading. The reason: Coke's product contains no more than .3% pomegranate and .2% blueberry, in spite of the prominence of the juices on the label. This, in turn, Pom alleged, results in unfair competition with its own line of pomegranate blueberry juice, which contains higher percentages of pomegranate and blueberry. Pom Wonderful asserted the claim under § 43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125), which allows private parties to assert civil claims for unfair competition.



The Court's decision overturns a 9th Circuit Court decision, which which held that the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA) precluded private civil suits of such nature under the Lanham Act. Specifically, the 9th circuit held provisions prohibiting the misbranding of food precluded the suits.  The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the relevant Lanham Act and FDCA provisions are complementary.

Ultimately, the decision is a good one for Pom Wonderful, and for consumers. It creates another avenue to hold accountable the food industry. The decision, nevertheless, raises interesting questions regarding the role and efficacy of FDA regulations. 

The practical outcome of the Pom decision is that the Court held that labels on food that comply with FDA regulations in terms of misbranding nevertheless might be deceptive and misleading.

Thus, as a consumer, the implication of the Pom decision is that I may be deceived and mislead by a label (under the Lanham Act), while that label remains appropriately labeled, as far as the FDA is concerned (under the FDCA).

The fact that a product may be appropriately branded, but still be misleading, raises the question of whether this is a fair position to put consumers. In other words, does the holding comport with the reasonable expectations of consumers? As a typical consumer, it may not be fair to assume that I have sufficient knowledge to discern that FDA-compliant labels may be misleading me. Shouldn't consumers be able to associate labels that effectively have the FDA's approval with the overall integrity of the product? If a label is approved by the FDA, shouldn't a reasonable consumer be able to conclude that product is NOT misleading them? Apparently not.

Neil Pederson, J.D. expected 2015, William Mitchell College of Law.

Photo Credit: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/25266.