Docket nos. 12-761 Opinion announcement Opinion announcement | Argument Oral argument Date 2014 | |
Citations 573 U.S. ___ (more)134 S.Ct. 2228, 189 L.Ed.2d 141 (2014) Prior history 679 F.3d 1170 (May 17, 2012), cert. granted, 571 U. S. ___ (2014) | ||
Pom wonderful llc v coca cola co realanimalsfakepaws puppyjustice
POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court which holds that a statutory private right of action under the Lanham Act is not precluded by regulatory provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Contents
- Pom wonderful llc v coca cola co realanimalsfakepaws puppyjustice
- Supreme court pom wonderful llc v coca cola co real animals fake paws
- Regulation of food and drug labeling
- Lanham Act claims
- The case at hand
- The courts below
- At the Supreme Court
- Impact
- Subsequent jury outcome
- References
Supreme court pom wonderful llc v coca cola co real animals fake paws
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."
Private parties are not allowed to bring enforcement actions under the Act. In addition, Congress amended it in order to provide for preemption of certain State laws dealing with product misbranding.
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," and provision was made for civil enforcement actions to be available for private parties in the federal courts.
The case at hand
POM Wonderful was 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.
The courts below
The District Court granted partial summary judgment to Coca-Cola, ruling that the FDCA and its regulations preclude challenges to the name and label of Coca-Cola's juice blend. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part.
At the Supreme Court
The Ninth Circuit ruling was reversed and remanded. In a unanimous decision, Justice Kennedy held:
Impact
The Court's decision was foreshadowed by Ginsburg J at the close of arguments:
It was generally agreed that the ruling will have a broad impact on the food industry, and food companies will need to be more diligent with their product labeling. Together with its ruling in the same term in Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, it is likely that there will a significant expansion in competitors bringing Lanham Act claims against each other over false or misleading statements.
On a broader theme, POM Wonderful dealt with issues that were also being considered by the Supreme Court in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., concerning privately originated securities litigation. In addition, it shows a degree of skepticism on the capabilities of administrative agencies, reflected in a dissenting opinion in the Court's 2013 decision in City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission, which Kennedy J had joined.
Subsequent jury outcome
The case went back to the California federal district court and eventually proceeded to jury trial. At trial it was established that Coca Cola Co.'s Minute Maid “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” consisted of 99.4% apple and grape juices, and only 0.3% pomegranate juice, 0.2% blueberry juice, and 0.1% raspberry juice.
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. On March 21, 2016, the California jury unanimously rejected POM's claim that the labeling of Minute Maid's pomegranate-blueberry juice (which did comply with FDA labeling requirements) was misleading, rejected that it was unfair competition, specifically found that the labeling did not misled a substantial portion of consumers, and found in favor of Coca-Cola, ending eight years of litigation.