This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-coca-cola-can-be-sued-over-juice-drink-label/2014/06/12/20e42536-f240-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court says Coca-Cola can be sued over juice drink label | Supreme Court says Coca-Cola can be sued over juice drink label |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| It’s not nice to fool Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. | It’s not nice to fool Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. |
| The justice said during oral arguments in April that he found the labeling of a Coca-Cola product called Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of Five Juices misleading, and Thursday he wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that the company can be sued for it. | The justice said during oral arguments in April that he found the labeling of a Coca-Cola product called Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of Five Juices misleading, and Thursday he wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court that the company can be sued for it. |
| Kennedy said competitor Pom Wonderful, which also markets pomegranate juice, can pursue its claim that the labeling of the product fools consumers because it contains only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice, and 0.2 percent blueberry juice. Almost everything else is apple and grape juice. | Kennedy said competitor Pom Wonderful, which also markets pomegranate juice, can pursue its claim that the labeling of the product fools consumers because it contains only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice, and 0.2 percent blueberry juice. Almost everything else is apple and grape juice. |
| Coca-Cola and its subsidiary Minute Maid argued that it could not be sued for misleading consumers under a statute called the Lanham Act because its label met the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Comestic Act (FDCA). | Coca-Cola and its subsidiary Minute Maid argued that it could not be sued for misleading consumers under a statute called the Lanham Act because its label met the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Comestic Act (FDCA). |
| But Kennedy said the two acts have co-existed since 1946. | But Kennedy said the two acts have co-existed since 1946. |
| “If Congress had concluded, in light of experience, that Lanham Act suits could interfere with the FDCA, it might well have enacted a provision addressing the issue during these 70 years,” Kennedy wrote. | “If Congress had concluded, in light of experience, that Lanham Act suits could interfere with the FDCA, it might well have enacted a provision addressing the issue during these 70 years,” Kennedy wrote. |
| Instead, “allowing Lanham Act suits takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation . . . to enhance the protection of competitors and consumers.” | Instead, “allowing Lanham Act suits takes advantage of synergies among multiple methods of regulation . . . to enhance the protection of competitors and consumers.” |
| Kennedy wrote that “despite the minuscule amount of pomegranate and blueberry juices,” the company’s labeling displayed “pomegranate blueberry” in capital letters on two lines, with “flavored blend of 5 juices” in smaller type. | Kennedy wrote that “despite the minuscule amount of pomegranate and blueberry juices,” the company’s labeling displayed “pomegranate blueberry” in capital letters on two lines, with “flavored blend of 5 juices” in smaller type. |
| While understated in the opinion for the court, Kennedy was outspoken at oral argument. | While understated in the opinion for the court, Kennedy was outspoken at oral argument. |
| Lawyer Kathleen Sullivan argued the name and label met Food and Drug Administration approval and “we don’t think that consumers are quite as unintelligent as Pom must think they are.” | Lawyer Kathleen Sullivan argued the name and label met Food and Drug Administration approval and “we don’t think that consumers are quite as unintelligent as Pom must think they are.” |
| Kennedy shot back: “Don’t make me feel bad, because I thought this was pomegranate juice.” | Kennedy shot back: “Don’t make me feel bad, because I thought this was pomegranate juice.” |
| The case is Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co. | The case is Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co. |
| More from the Washington Post: | |
| Court determines what constitutes pomegranate juice | |
| Food labels get first makeover in 20 years | |
| Is organic better for your health? |