To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Dole markets a variety of fruit products – such as Fruit Bowls in Gel, Fruit Bowl Parfaits, and Canned Juices – with various
health-related claims. These claims include, for example:
- “It’s our promise to provide everyone, everywhere with
good nutrition!”; - “Dole Fruit Bowls seal in goodness and nutrition”;
and - “Vitamin C is an antioxidant that helps support a healthy
immune system.”
Some consumers sued Dole, alleging that these claims are false
and misleading because they mislead consumers into believing that
these are healthy products. The consumers argued that these
fruit-based products are not, in fact, healthy because they derive
a significant percentage of their calories from sugar.
Good Nutrition
First, the court held that Dole’s statements that it will
provide everyone with “good nutrition” and that their
fruit products “seal in goodness and nutrition” were
puffery. Here’s why.
In order to establish a false advertising claim under California
law, a plaintiff must show that “members of the public are
likely to be deceived” by the challenged representation. This
requires more than the mere possibility that the packaging
“might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers
viewing the labels in an unreasonable manner.” Rather, the
plaintiff must demonstrate that it is “probable that a
significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted
consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be
misled.”
A claim can’t deceive consumers, however, if it is mere
puffery. Here, the court defined “puffery” as
“exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boating upon which
no reasonable buyer would rely and is not actionable.” The
court explained that, “the difference between a statement of
fact and mere puffery rests in the specificity or generality of the
claim.” In other words, is the statement “capable of
being provided false or of being reasonably interpreted as a
statement of objective fact”?
The court explained that understanding the context in which the
statements were made was critical to determining whether they were
claims or puffery. Here, the court felt that, since the statements
where made in conjunction with other statements about sunshine,
consumers wouldn’t understand the statements to be making
specific verifiable representations about nutrition. The court
wrote, “each reference to the challenged phrases . . . follows
advertising copy that likens the Products to sunshine – a
patently fanciful analogy that is further reinforced with playful,
childlike drawings of the sun. The context, in other words, clearly
signals that the claims are too vague and aspirational to serve as
anything other than ‘exaggerated advertising.'”
The court also thought that, in light of the types of products
that the consumers were buying, they wouldn’t think that the
statements were communicating that they were buying a healthy
product. The court explained, “It is simply implausible that a
reasonable consumer who knows they are buying a sweet product, such
as Diced Peaches in Strawberry Flavored Gel, and who read a
challenged statement like ‘We believe in Sunshine for All.
It’s our promise to provide everyone, everywhere with good
nutrition!” immediately adjacent to the Nutrition Facts panel
showing the amount of both naturally occurring and added sugar,
would assume that the Product is generally healthy or would not
increase the risk of any disease.”
Vitamin C Claims
Finally, the court held that the consumers’ claims based on
Dole’s statements about the benefits of having Vitamin C in the
product were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
“FDCA”). The FDCA does not permit states to establish any
food labeling requirements that are different from those required
under federal law.
The FDCA governs “all voluntary statements about nutrient
content or health information a manufacturer chooses to include on
a food label or packaging.” This includes both express claims
as well as claims that, by implication, characterize the level of
any nutrient or characterize the relationship of any nutrient to a
disease or health-related condition.
Here, the court held that Dole’s Vitamin C-related claims
constituted implied nutrient content claims and therefore were
preempted by the FDCA.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment from United States
Credit: Source link