In POM Wonderful vs. Coca-Cola, Supreme Court Considers Food Labeling, False Advertising, and FDA Authority

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today
in
a case reporters can’t resist describing as “juicy.” No,
there’s nothing terribly salacious or scandalous about this case.
But it revolves around claims that Coca-Cola makes on Minute Maid
brand pomegranate blueberry juice.

Coca-Cola describes the beverage in question as a “Pomegranate
Blueberry Blend of 5 Juices,” which is not exactly untrue.
The drink contains about 0.5 percent pomegranate and blueberry
juices, along with apple, grape, and raspberry juice.

But competitor Pom Wonderful took issue with Coca-Cola’s
statements. In POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company,
the juice maker charges the beverage behemoth with false
advertising, a violation of the federal Lanham
Act. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against
Pom Wonderful, holding that a private party can’t bring a claim
challenging a product label, as these are regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
the FDA was granted regulatory authority over food and drink naming
and labeling. 

But it’s unclear whether the agency
has exclusive authority in this realm. The
Supreme Court is
now tasked with deciding whether that’s the case or whether
private parties can sue for false advertising on food and
drink labels. From the
Wall Street Journal:

Coca-Cola’s position is that Congress intentionally gave
exclusive regulatory authority to the FDA so that manufacturers
could rely upon a single, nationally uniform, legal standard about
food names and labels. Pom’s position is that the FDA
rules provide a legal floor for food and drink manufacturers, but
other legal rules, such as the federal false advertising laws, can
require manufacturers to do more than the FDA’s minimum.

Thus, Pom argues that Coca-Cola is deceiving consumers under the
cover of inadequate FDA regulations, and Pom will protect consumers
if it can sue under federal false advertising law; while Coca-Cola
argues that lawsuits like Pom’s threatens to create anarchy for
food and drink manufacturers by creating multitudinous and possibly
inconsistent labeling obligations.

The lawsuit only applies to names and claims on product labels,
not other forms of advertising. Competitors and consumers can and
do bring lawsuits for false advertising in food and drink
ads.