Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


POM heads to court, will field labeling suits as both plaintiff and defendant

Juice maker will defend its right to make claims about products’ health benefits

Food labeling suits have seen a considerable increase over the last few years, with a number of large food manufacturers heading to court to fight accusations that their products carry labels that falsely extoll their benefits. PopChips, Trader Joe’s and Tom’s of Maine toothpaste are among the companies that have paid millions to settle suits on misleading labels that classified their products as “all-natural.” Now POM Wonderful LLC will be the next company to define law around misleading labels, and it will do so from both the plaintiff and defense sides of the aisle.  

The juice maker will head to the United States Supreme Court on April 21 where it will continue its battle with Coca-Cola over alleged mislabeling of its juice products. POM argues that Coke’s Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry juice labeling misled customers because the blend contains only 0.3 percent pomegranate and 0.2 percent blueberry juice.  POM alleges that Coke’s misleading representation of the product is a violation of the Lanham Act.

The outcome of the case could redefine how and when Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation compliance prevents others from suiting.

According to Attorney Thomas Williams, Ulmer & Berne LLP “The Ninth Circuit held that the claims were barred because Coca-Cola’s product labeling complied with FDA regulations despite the relatively low content of those fruits in the product.  The court held that POM’s false advertising challenge would create a potential conflict with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the FDA had comprehensively regulated juice labeling under the Act, and the Coca-Cola label was in compliance.

In addition to the case it will be championing in Supreme Court, POM will also defend its own labeling case this against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC.) The FTC took issue with POM’s claims that it could help ward off prostate cancer or let customers “cheat death.” The agency then barred POM’s use of the tag line.

POM argues that the FTC was "taking the unprecedented step of holding food companies like POM Wonderful to the same standards as pharmaceuticals." This case hopes to reinstate the use of these slogans, which POM argues should be protected under the first amendment.

Decisions on both cases should come later this year.


For more on lawsuits around food and beverage check out these stories: 

General Mills updates legal terms to protect itself from customer lawsuits

ABC will face South Dakota court over ‘pink slime’ comments

Beverage industry groups sue to block NYC sugary drink ban

Executive Editor

author image

Chris DiMarco

Chris DiMarco, Executive Editor of InsideCounsel magazine, has a background in multimedia production with previous involvement in projects in which he developed and created content...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.