POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

Last updated
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 21, 2014
Decided June 12, 2014
Full case namePOM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company
Docket no. 12-761
Citations573 U.S. 102 ( more )
134 S. Ct. 2228; 189 L. Ed. 2d 141
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior 679 F.3d 1170 (May 17, 2012), cert. granted, 571 U. S. 1118 (2014)
Holding
Reversed and remanded. Neither the Lanham Act nor the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in express terms, forbids or limits private Lanham Act claims challenging labels that are regulated by the other Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that a statutory private right of action under the Lanham Act is not precluded by regulatory provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. [1]

Contents

Background

Regulation of food and drug labeling

In 1938, the United States Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in order to regulate the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. Under the Act, the Food and Drug Administration has issued regulations governing food and beverage labeling, including the labeling of mixes of different types of juice into one juice blend. In particular, if a juice blend does not name all the juices it contains and mentions only juices that are not predominant in the blend, then it must either declare the percentage content of the named juice or "[i]ndicate that the named juice is present as a flavor or flavoring." [2]

Private parties are not allowed to bring enforcement actions under the Act. [3] In addition, Congress amended it in order to provide for preemption of certain State laws dealing with product misbranding. [4]

Lanham Act claims

In 1946, Congress enacted the Lanham Act in order to govern the use of trademarks. Among its stated aims was the regulation of "commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce," [5] and provision was made for civil enforcement actions to be available for private parties in the federal courts. [6]

The case at hand

POM Wonderful is a grower of pomegranates and a distributor of pomegranate juices, including a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend. The Coca-Cola Company, through its Minute Maid division, created a pomegranate-blueberry juice product that in reality was 99.4% apple and grape juices. The front label of its package carried the words "pomegranate blueberry" in capital letters, below which the phrase "flavored blend of 5 juices" appeared in much smaller type, followed in still smaller type by "from concentrate with added ingredients and other natural flavors" (presented over two lines).

POM brought suit under the Lanham Act in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the name, label, marketing, and advertising of Coca-Cola's juice blend misled consumers as to its actual content, thereby causing POM to lose sales.

Lower courts

The District Court granted partial summary judgment to Coca-Cola, ruling that the FDCA and its regulations preclude challenges to the name and the label of Coca-Cola's juice blend. [7] On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in the relevant part. [8]

Supreme Court decision

The Ninth Circuit ruling was reversed and remanded. [9] [10] In a unanimous decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held:

  • The case was one not of preemption but of preclusion and so any "presumption against pre-emption" has no force. [11] "Although the Court's pre-emption precedent does not govern preclusion analysis in this case, its principles are instructive insofar as they are designed to assess the interaction of laws that bear on the same subject."
  • As this is a statutory interpretation case, the Court relies on traditional rules of statutory interpretation. That does not change because the case involves multiple federal statutes, nor does it change because an agency is involved. [12]
  • "When two statutes complement each other, it would show disregard for the congressional design to hold that Congress nonetheless intended one federal statute to preclude the operation of the other." [13]
  • "A holding that the FDCA precludes Lanham Act claims challenging food and beverage labels would not only ignore the distinct functional aspects of the FDCA and the Lanham Act but also would lead to a result that Congress likely did not intend."
  • "Even if agency regulations with the force of law that purport to bar other legal remedies may do so, [14] [15] it is a bridge too far to accept an agency's after-the-fact statement to justify that result here. An agency may not reorder federal statutory rights without congressional authorization."

Subsequent jury trial

The case went back to the California federal district court and eventually proceeded to jury trial, where it was established that Coca-Cola Co.'s Minute Maid "Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend" was 99.4% apple and grape juices and only 0.3% pomegranate juice, 0.2% blueberry juice, and 0.1% raspberry juice. [16]

On March 18, 2016, POM made its closing arguments, and the case went to the jury with POM claiming losses of $10 million per year from 2007 to 2014 (totaling more than $77 million) caused by Coca-Cola's Minute Maid pomegranate and blueberry juice drink misleading labeling and advertising. [16] On March 21, 2016, the California jury unanimously rejected POM's claim that the labeling of Minute Maid's pomegranate-blueberry juice blend (which did comply with FDA labeling requirements) was either misleading or unfair competition and found that the labeling did not mislead a substantial portion of consumers, in favor of Coca-Cola, ending eight years of litigation. [16] [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pure Food and Drug Act</span> 1906 consumer protection law in the US

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, also known as Dr. Wiley's Law, was the first of a series of significant consumer protection laws which was enacted by Congress in the 20th century and led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. Its main purpose was to ban foreign and interstate traffic in adulterated or mislabeled food and drug products, and it directed the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry to inspect products and refer offenders to prosecutors. It required that active ingredients be placed on the label of a drug's packaging and that drugs could not fall below purity levels established by the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lanham Act</span> United States trademark law

The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub. L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. is the primary federal trademark statute in the United States. In other words, the Act is the primary statutory foundation of United States trademark law at the federal level. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Odwalla Inc. is an American health food company based in Dinuba, California. Founded in Santa Cruz, California in 1980 Formerly headquartered from 1995 to 2020 in Half Moon Bay, California, the company's product lines include fruit juices, smoothies, soy milk, bottled water, organic beverages, and several types of energy bars, known as "food bars".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minute Maid</span> American beverage company

Minute Maid is a product line of beverages, usually associated with lemonade or orange juice, but which now extends to soft drinks of different kinds, including Hi-C. Minute Maid is sold under the Cappy brand in Central Europe and under the brand "Моя Семья" in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Minute Maid was the first company to market frozen orange juice concentrate, allowing it to be distributed throughout the United States and served year-round. The Minute Maid Company is owned by The Coca-Cola Company, the world's largest marketer of fruit juices and drinks. The firm opened its headquarters in Sugar Land Town Square in Sugar Land, Texas, United States, on February 16, 2009; previously it was headquartered in the 2000 St. James Place building in Houston.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Five Alive</span> Line of fruit juice blends

Five Alive is a line of fruit juice blends created by Minute Maid, a subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company. Both the name and the five colors of the logo refer to the five fruit juices each variety contains.

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000), is an important United States Supreme Court case in U.S. administrative law. It ruled that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products as "drugs" or "devices." This was later superseded by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which granted the FDA the authority to regulate such products.

POM Wonderful, LLC is a private company which sells an eponymous brand of beverages and fruit extracts. It was founded in 2002 by the billionaire industrial agriculture couple Stewart and Lynda Rae Resnick. Through The Wonderful Company, their holding company, they are also affiliated with Teleflora, FIJI Water, pesticide manufacturer Suterra, and Paramount Agribusiness. In 2010, the company was warned by the FDA for making false health claims and for marketing statements that promoted their products as unauthorized drugs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hi-C</span> Fruit juice-flavored soft drink

Hi-C is a fruit juice-flavored drink made by the Minute Maid division of The Coca-Cola Company. It was created by Niles Foster in 1946 and released in 1947. The sole original flavor was orange.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pomegranate juice</span> Juice obtained from the fruit of the pomegranate

Pomegranate juice is made from the fruit of the pomegranate. It is used in cooking both as a fresh juice and as a concentrated syrup.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Naked Juice</span> American brand

Naked Juice is an American brand that produces juices and smoothies. The company is based in Monrovia, California and is owned by PAI Partners. The first Naked Juice drink was produced in 1983 and sold in California under the name "Naked Juice", referring to the composition of no artificial flavors, added sugar, or preservatives. Distribution has since expanded, and Naked Juice products are distributed in the United States, as well as in Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France, among others.

Since its invention by John Stith Pemberton in 1886, criticisms of Coca-Cola as a product, and of the business practices of The Coca-Cola Company have been significant. The Coca-Cola Company is the largest soft drink company in the world, distributing over 500 different products. Since the early 2000s, the criticism of the use of Coca-Cola products, as well as the company itself, escalated, with criticism leveled at the company over health effects, environmental issues, animal testing, economic business practices and employee issues. The Coca-Cola Company has been faced with multiple lawsuits concerning the various criticisms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monster Beverage</span> American beverage company

Monster Beverage Corporation is an American beverage company that manufactures energy drinks including Monster Energy, Relentless and Burn. The company was originally founded as Hansen's in 1935 in Southern California, originally selling juice products. The company renamed itself as Monster Beverage in 2012, and then sold their Hansen's juices and sodas and their other non-energy drink brands to the Coca-Cola Company in 2015.

United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, 241 U.S. 265 (1916), was a federal suit under which the government unsuccessfully attempted to force the Coca-Cola Company to remove caffeine from its product.

The "jelly bean rule" is a rule put forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 19, 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diet Coke Plus</span>

Diet Coke Plus was a formulation of Diet Coke fortified with vitamins and minerals. It is sweetened with a blend of aspartame and acesulfame potassium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blue Sky Beverage Company</span> Beverage company

Blue Sky Beverage Company was a beverage company that produced soft drinks and energy drinks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Monster Beverage Corporation. The company was established in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 1980, where it remained until it was purchased by Monster in 2000. Coca-Cola North America took ownership of Blue Sky Sodas, Hansen’s Juice Products, Hansen’s Natural Sodas, Hubert’s Lemonade, Peace Tea and other non-energy drink brands as part of Coke’s partnership with Monster Beverage Corp on Jun 12, 2015. Blue Sky Beverage Company now operates out of Corona, California. The southwestern look and feel of the artwork on the soda cans is reminiscent of the company's roots in New Mexico.

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration</span> Governmental regulation of food quality

The regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a process governed by various statutes enacted by the United States Congress and interpreted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and accompanying legislation, the FDA has authority to oversee the quality of substances sold as food in the United States, and to monitor claims made in the labeling about both the composition and the health benefits of foods.

62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "imitation jam," so labeled, was not a "misbranded" product under § 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 21 U.S.C. § 343, even though it did not meet federal regulations for being fruit jam.

References

  1. ↑ POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014).
  2. ↑ 21 CFR 102.33
  3. ↑ 21 U.S.C.   § 337
  4. ↑ 21 U.S.C.   § 343-1(a)
  5. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 1127
  6. ↑ 15 U.S.C.   § 1125(a)
  7. ↑ POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 727F. Supp. 2d849 (C.D. Cal.2010)("The FDA has directly spoken on the issues that form the basis of Pom's Lanham Act claim against the naming and labeling of the Juice, and has therefore, reached a conclusion as to what is permissible.").
  8. ↑ POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679F.3d1170 (9th Cir.2012)("But, under our precedent, for a court to act when the FDA has not—despite regulating extensively in this area—would risk undercutting the FDA's expert judgments and authority.").
  9. ↑ Adam Liptak (June 12, 2014). "Coke Can Be Sued by Rival Over Juice Claim, Court Says". The New York Times .
  10. ↑ Brent Kendall (June 12, 2014). "Supreme Court Allows False-Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola". The Wall Street Journal .
  11. ↑ Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council , 530U.S.363 , 565(2000).
  12. ↑ Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation , 529U.S.120 , 137–139(2000).
  13. ↑ J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc., dba Farm Advantage, Inc. v. Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534U.S.124 , 144(2001)("Here we can plainly regard each statute as effective because of its different requirements and protections.").
  14. ↑ Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. , 529U.S.861 , 874(2000).
  15. ↑ Wyeth v. Levine , 555U.S.555 , 576(2009).
  16. 1 2 3 Ikeda, Tiffany; Blackburn, James (March 25, 2016). "Coca-Cola Defeats POM Wonderful's Misleading Labeling Claims: A Key Takeaway For Food and Beverage Manufacturers". www.consumeradvertisinglawblog.com. Washington, DC: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.
  17. ↑ Esterl, Mike (March 21, 2016). "Jury Sides With Coca-Cola in False-Advertising Suit by Pom" . Wall Street Journal .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.