Consumer Fraud Claim on "All Natural" Beverage Rejected

One trend we are keeping an eye on here at MassTortDefense is plaintiffs' aggressive and excessive use of consumer fraud act claims, micro-analyzing every ad, turning traditional puffing into some kind of nefarious marketing scheme. Class certification in such cases can trigger the need to think about "blackmail settlements."

So all victories are worth noting, and last week South Beach Beverage Co. Inc., maker of SoBe drinks, garnered dismissal of a California putative class action alleging false claims about their "0 Calories Lifewater" drinks. See Charles Hairston v. South Beach Beverage Co. Inc,. et al., No. 2:12-cv-01429 (C.D. Cal. 5/18/12).

SoBe manufactures a diverse range of beverages, including teas and enhanced waters, that are characterized by exotic flavor combinations and added vitamins. In his First Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleged that during the last three to four years, he regularly purchased SoBe 0 Calorie Lifewater beverages (“Lifewater”), which are no-calorie, vitamin-enhanced, flavored water drinks. Plaintiff raised three challenges to Lifewater’s labeling, which he claimed he “read and relied on.” First, plaintiff alleged that the “all natural” label was potentially deceptive because Lifewater contains “deceptively labeled ingredients” that are “synthetic or created via chemical processing.” Second, plaintiff alleged that Lifewater’s labels are potentially misleading because the names of various fruits are used to describe the different flavors of Lifewater even though Lifewater allegedly does not contain any actual fruit or fruit juice. Third, plaintiff alleged that the use of the common vitamin name (e.g., B12) on the product labels is misleading because the vitamins added to Lifewater are "synthetic" or created via chemical processing.

As is typical, plaintiffs alleged causes of action including for: (1) California Consumers Legal Remedies Act – California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); (2) California False Advertising Law – California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. (“FAL”); (3) California Unfair Competition Law – California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”).

Defendants argued first that the claims alleged related to the use of fruit names to describe the various flavors of Lifewater and their use of common vitamin names were preempted by the express preemption provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) and by the specific labeling regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The court concluded that plaintiff’s claims related to defendants’ use of the names of various fruits to describe the different flavors of Lifewater were indeed preempted. See, e.g., Dvora v.

General Mills, Inc., 2011 WL 1897349 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2011) (holding that CLRA and UCL claims

were preempted where the plaintiff was challenging the use of the words “Blueberry Pomegranate”

in labeling a cereal not containing any blueberries or pomegranates because FDA regulations

explicitly permit manufacturers “to use the name and images of a fruit on a product’s packaging to

describe the characterizing flavor of the product even where the product does not contain any of

that fruit, or contains no fruit at all”); McKinnis v. General Mills, Inc., 2007 WL 4762172 (C.D. Cal.

Sept. 18, 2007) (holding that use of “Strawberry Kiwi” to designate the flavor of yogurt containing

no fruit ingredients was “permissible to demonstrate the ‘characterizing flavor’ of the product”).

The court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims related to defendants’ use of the common names

of vitamins were preempted. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(c)(8)(v) (recognizing that “Vitamin C” and

“Ascorbic acid” are “synonym[s]” that may be used in the alternative in a product’s nutritional

information labeling); 21 C.F.R. § 101.9(k)(4) (stating that the FDA will consider a food

“misbranded” if its “label or labeling represents, suggests, or implies” that “a natural vitamin in food is superior to an added or synthetic vitamin”).

Significantly, the court concluded that plaintiff could not avoid preemption of these claims by arguing that his claim related solely to defendants’ “all natural” representations and that he included his fruit name and vitamin name claims only as support for his “all natural” claim. Such an argument would effectively allow a plaintiff to always avoid preemption of those claims, and would undermine the purpose of the federal labeling standards which includes avoiding

a patchwork of different state standards. These claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff also alleged that the “all natural” labeling on defendants’ products was potentially deceptive because the product contains “deceptively labeled ingredients” that are

“synthetic or created via chemical processing.” However, plaintiff could not state a claim under the

CLRA, FAL, or UCL regarding defendants’ allegedly deceptive “all natural” labeling because once

the preempted statements regarding fruit names and vitamin labeling were removed, plaintiff’s claim is based on a single out-of-context phrase found in one component of Lifewater’s label.

The court concluded that plaintiff’s selective interpretation of individual words or phrases from a product’s labeling could not support a CLRA, FAL, or UCL claim. See, e.g., Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, 2012 WL 1131526 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012). Lifewater’s label did not simply state that it is “all natural” without elaboration or explanation. Instead, the “all natural” language was immediately followed by additional statements, like “with vitamins” or “with B vitamins.” Lifewater did not use the “all natural” language in a vacuum. Thus, it was impossible for plaintiff to allege how the “all natural” language would be deceptive without relying on the preempted statements regarding fruit names and vitamins.

In addition, the court concluded that no reasonable consumer would read the “all natural”

language as modifying the “with vitamins” language and somehow believe that the added vitamins are suppose to be “all natural vitamins.” Moreover, to the extent there was any ambiguity, it was clarified by the detailed information contained in the ingredient list, which explained the exact contents of Lifewater. In this case, the ingredient list was consistent with the front label statement of “all natural with vitamins.”

The court concluded that the challenge to the “all natural” language on Lifewater was not deceptive as a matter of law.