Supreme Court OKs Lanham Act for Food Labeling, Despite FDCA
By Devon Winkles
Recent years have seen an explosion in food-based litigation. Although most of the litigation has been brought by consumers, on Thursday the Supreme Court opened the door to more litigation among competitors when it
POM alleged that the labeling of Coca-Cola’s blueberry-pomegranate juice blend was false and misleading—the amounts of blueberry and pomegranate in the blend are small. Coca-Cola responded that the FDCA, which regulates food and beverage labeling, precluded POM’s Lanham Act challenge. The Court disagreed. The Court held that the FDCA and the Lanham Act are complementary and the FDCA is not a ceiling on food label regulation. Accordingly, competitors may bring their own actions to police false or misleading labels.
The decision could have implications for consumer class actions, although the Court’s analysis was limited to the preclusive effect of the FDCA on Lanham Act claims. A separate provision of FDCA, not at issue here, is the basis for partial preemption of state law claims, such as those often made in consumer class actions. (Neither the FDCA, FTC Act, nor Lanham Act affords standing to consumers.) In addition, the Court provided no discussion for or against “primary jurisdiction,” a principle often advanced by defendants in these consumer class actions; Coca-Cola did not seek dismissal on that basis.
More directly, the Court may have signaled that competitor litigation is a new battleground for the food wars. It is clear that compliance with FDA guidance no longer provides a safe harbor with regard to labeling. Companies must consider whether, apart from those rules, their labeling could be viewed by competitors as false or misleading. And competitors can recover damages under the Lanham Act without the hurdles, such as preemption and
Caveat Vendor is Paul Hastings’ Consumer Issues blog. We welcome your feedback. Please contact our blog editor with any thoughts or suggestions.