Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16721/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16721-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shana Becerra
Appellant
Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHANA BECERRA, on behalf

of herself, all others similarly

situated, and the general

public,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16721

D.C. No.

3:17-cv-05921-WHO

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2019

San Francisco, California

Filed December 30, 2019

Before: Eugene E. Siler,* Jay S. Bybee,

and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bybee

* The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 1 of 12
2 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

SUMMARY**

California Consumer Fraud 

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal

of plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging that 

Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. violated various California

consumer-fraud laws by branding Diet Dr Pepper using the

word “diet.”

The panel held that the allegations in the complaint failed

to sufficiently allege that reasonable consumers read the word

“diet” in a soft drink’s brand name to promise weight loss,

healthy weight management, or other health benefits. The

panel held that diet soft drinks are common in the

marketplace and the prevalent understanding of the term in

that context is that the “diet” version of a soft drink has fewer

calories than its “regular” counterpart. Just because some

consumers may unreasonably interpret the term differently

does not render the use of “diet” in a soda’s brand name false

or deceptive. Accordingly, because plaintiff had not

sufficiently alleged that Diet Dr Pepper’s labeling was false

or misleading, dismissal was proper.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 2 of 12
BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP 3

COUNSEL

Jack Fitzgerald (argued), Trevor M. Flynn, and Melanie

Persinger, The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC, San Diego,

California; Andrew Sacks and John Weston, Sacks Weston

Diamond LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; for PlaintiffAppellant.

Evan A. Young (argued), Baker Botts L.L.P., Austin, Texas;

Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, Texas; Ariel D.

House, Baker Botts L.L.P., San Francisco, California; for

Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

BYBEE, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Shana Becerra sued appellee Dr Pepper/Seven

Up, Inc. (Dr Pepper), alleging that Dr Pepper violated various

California consumer-fraud laws by branding Diet Dr Pepper

using the word “diet.” After the district court dismissed her

third amended complaint with prejudice, Becerra appealed. 

We affirm the judgment.

I

In October 2017, Becerra filed her initial complaint,

alleging that Dr Pepper’s naming and marketing of Diet

Dr Pepper violated various provisions of California state law. 

She then amended the initial complaint to correct the name of

the defendant, and Dr Pepper moved to dismiss the amended

complaint. Becerra again amended her complaint in response

to the motion to dismiss. Becerra’s second amended

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 3 of 12
4 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

complaint alleged that the label “diet” misled Diet Dr Pepper

consumers by promising that the product would “assist in

weight loss” or at least “not cause weight gain.” Becerra

relied on several studies to allege that aspartame, the artificial

sweetener used in Diet Dr Pepper, “is likely to cause weight

gain” and “poses no benefit for weight loss,” rendering the

promise allegedly inherent in the word “diet” false and

misleading. The second amended complaint raised five

causes of action: (1) violations of the California False

Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.;

(2) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies

Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; (3) violations of the

California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

§§ 17200 et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty in violation

of Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1); and (5) breach of the implied

warranty of merchantability in violation of Cal. Com. Code

§ 2314.

Dr Pepper moved to dismiss the second-amended

complaint and the district court granted the motion without

prejudice, concluding that Becerra failed to sufficiently allege

that reasonable consumers would understand “diet” in a soft

drink’s brand name to promise weight loss and that, even if

she had, the scientific studies she cited failed to support her

allegations that this promise was false. Becerra amended her

complaint and Dr Pepper again moved to dismiss.

Becerra’s third amended complaint—the operative

complaint in this case—contains the same general allegations

as her second amended complaint, but adds several categories

of allegations in an attempt to correct deficiencies the district

court identified. First, she cited dictionary definitions to

support her allegation that reasonable consumers understand

the word “diet” to promise assistance in weight loss. Second,

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 4 of 12
BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP 5

she included references to print and television advertisements

as further support of the allegation that consumers understand

“diet” soft drinks to offer certain health benefits. Third, she

cited two online articles from the American Beverage

Association (ABA) to further reinforce her reading of the

word “diet.” Finally, she summarized the results of a survey

of California and national consumers, which she contends is

proof that the majority of soft-drink consumers believe “diet”

soft drinks will help them lose or maintain their weight.

After a hearing, the district court granted Dr Pepper’s

third motion to dismiss. The district court found that no

reasonable consumer would believe that the word “diet” in a

soft drink’s brand name promises weight loss or healthy

weight management and, even if a reasonable consumer

would believe that, Becerra had not sufficiently alleged that

any such promise was false because ofinsufficient allegations

that aspartame consumption causes weight gain. The district

court dismissed Becerra’s breach-of-warranty claims for the

same reasons.1 Finally, because Becerra’s counsel agreed at

the hearing that there was nothing to add to the complaint, the

district court dismissed the complaint without leave to

amend.2

 Becerra filed a timely appeal.

1 Becerra does not challenge the dismissal of these claims on appeal.

2 Becerra’s suit against Dr Pepper in California was part of a series of

suits brought against soda manufacturers. Becerra also filed suit in

California against Coca-Cola. We dismiss that suit on jurisdictional

grounds in a memorandum decision filed concurrently with this opinion. 

The Second Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of complaints similar to

Becerra’s that were filed under New York’s consumer-fraud laws. 

Geffner v. Coca-Cola Co., 928 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam);

Excevarria v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., 764 F. App’x 108 (2d Cir.

2019); Manuel v. Pepsi-Cola Co., 763 F. App’x 108 (2d Cir. 2019).

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 5 of 12
6 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Dismissal

of a complaint for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo. 

Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We

accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true and

constru[e] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party.” Id. (quoting Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp.,

669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff has

not “allege[d] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Turner v. City & Cty. of San

Francisco, 788 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Determining whether

a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is “a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its

judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

Claims sounding in fraud or mistake are subject to the

heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 9(b), which requires that such claims “state with

particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” 

This includes “the who, what, when, where, and how of the

misconduct charged.” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,

317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted). In fraud cases, plaintiffs “must set

forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why

it is false.” Decker v. GlenFed, Inc., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th

Cir. 1994). The allegations of fraud “must be specific enough

to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which

is alleged to constitute the fraud charged.” Swartz v. KPMG

LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007).

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 6 of 12
BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP 7

III

Becerra’s claims under the California consumerprotection statutes are governed by the “reasonable

consumer” test. Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d

934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). Under this standard, Becerra must

“show that members of the public are likely to be deceived.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also

Bank of West v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545, 553 (Cal.

1992). This requires more than a mere possibility that Diet

Dr Pepper’s label “might conceivably be misunderstood by

some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” 

Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486, 495

(Cal. Ct. App. 2003); see id. at 492 (rejecting a “least

sophisticated consumer” standard). Rather, the reasonable

consumer standard requires a probability “that a significant

portion of the general consuming public or of targeted

consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be

misled.” Id.

Becerra’s consumer-fraud claims center on two primary

allegations: first, the word “diet” in Diet Dr Pepper’s brand

name promises that the product will assist in weight loss or

healthy weight management and, second, that promise is false

because aspartame causes weight gain. Because Becerra’s

claims depend on both allegations being true, she must

sufficiently allege both for her claims to survive. We will

affirm the judgment on the basis of Becerra’s first allegation

and not reach the second.

Becerra alleges that, based on Diet Dr Pepper’s use of the

term“diet,” “consumers reasonably believe that drinkingDiet

Dr Pepper will assist in weight loss or healthy weight

management.” She contends that the use of “diet” in Diet

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 7 of 12
8 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

Dr Pepper’s brand name contains an “implicit promise [] that,

because Diet Dr Pepper does not contain sugar or calories, it

will assist in weight loss, or at least healthy weight

management . . . and that it is useful for those who must limit

their sugar intakes.”

We will begin with the observation that Becerra’s

citations to dictionary definitions of the word “diet” are

citations to the word when used as a verb or noun, as in “he

is dieting” or “she is starting a diet.” But, as Dr Pepper and

the district court noted, “diet” in Diet Dr Pepper is either an

adjective or a proper noun, and that puts the word in a

different light. Becerra’s selective quotations omit the

definitions of “diet” as an adjective and the frequent usage of

“diet soft drinks” as the primary example of the word’s usage

in that context. For example, the Merriam Webster

Dictionary defines the adjective “diet” as “reduced in or

free from calories[—]a diet soft drink.” Diet, MERRIAMWEBSTER DICTIONARY, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/diet. The other dictionaries cited by

Dr Pepper have the same general definition of “diet” in this

context. See, e.g., Diet, AMERICAN HERITAGEDICTIONARY,

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=diet

(“Having fewer calories . . . Sweetened with a noncaloric

sugar substitute”); Diet, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/diet

(“(of food or drink) containing much less sugar than usual

and often sweetened artificially, or containing less fat than

usual: diet soda”); Diet, COLLINS DICTIONARY,

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/diet

(“Diet drinks or foods have been specially produced so that

they do not contain many calories . . .sugar-free diet drinks”).

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 8 of 12
BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP 9

When considering the term in its proper context, no

reasonable consumer would assume that Diet Dr Pepper’s use

of the term “diet” promises weight loss or management. In

context, the use of “diet” in a soft drink’s brand name is

understood as a relative claim about the calorie content of

that soft drink compared to the same brand’s “regular” (fullcaloric) option. See Geffner, 928 F.3d at 200 (“the ‘diet’

label refers specifically to the drink’s low calorie content; it

does not convey a more general weight loss promise”

(footnote omitted)). And considering “diet” as a proper

noun—as in Diet Dr Pepper—does not further Becerra’s

argument. In common usage, consumers know that Diet

Dr Pepper is a different product from Dr Pepper—different

not only in name, but in packaging and, importantly, taste.

Becerra argues that, regardless of the common

understanding of the word, dismissal was still improper

because she alleged a plausible misunderstanding of the

word. But we have previously affirmed dismissal of claims

based on similar unreasonable assumptions. In Ebner, the

plaintiff claimed that a net-weight statement on packaging for

a lip balm was deceptive because the design of the dispenser

left twenty-five percent of the product inaccessible. 838 F.3d

at 961. We held that similar dispensers were “commonplace

in the market,” such that a reasonable consumer “understands

the general mechanics of these dispenser tubes and further

understands that some product may be left in the tube” even

when pushed all the way up. Id. at 965. “A rational

consumer would not simply assume that the tube contains no

further product” when he or she could see the remaining

product in the tube. Id. at 966. And even if some consumers

would make that assumption, the packaging was not

deceptive just because some consumers could unreasonably

misunderstand the product. Id.

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 9 of 12
10 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

The same is true here. Diet soft drinks are common in the

marketplace and the prevalent understanding of the term in

that context is that the “diet” version of a soft drink has fewer

calories than its “regular” counterpart. Just because some

consumers may unreasonably interpret the term differently

does not render the use of “diet” in a soda’s brand name false

or deceptive. See Lavie, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 495.

Aside from dictionary definitions of “diet,” Becerra also

pointed to Diet Dr Pepper’s advertisements, online articles

from the ABA, and the results of a consumer survey to

support her allegations that reasonable consumers understand

the word “diet” to contain an implicit weight-loss promise. 

Becerra first cites a host of Dr Pepper print and television

advertisements dating back to the 1970s. But these ads are

either irrelevant to her claims,3or make no reference to

weight loss or other health benefits. The statements in the ads

are mainly comparative—that is, they imply that “diet” drinks

often do not taste like their “regular” counterparts, but that

Diet Dr Pepper tastes more like its “regular” counterpart than

other diet soft drinks do. This further supports the conclusion

that reasonable consumers understand “diet” in this context

to be a relative term and not a promise of weight loss or other

health benefits. Becerra also alleges that the use of attractive,

fit models in the ads implies that Diet Dr Pepper will help its

consumers achieve those bodies. But, as the Second Circuit

pointed out when considering a nearly identical complaint,

“[t]he use of physically fit and attractive models using and

enjoying advertised products is so ubiquitous that it cannot be

3 Her claim is premised on the allegation that the word “diet” contains

certain inherent promises. Ads for “Sugar Free Dr Pepper” (the soda’s

name before it was rebranded) do nothing to support her claims that the

name “Diet Dr Pepper” is false or misleading.

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 10 of 12
BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP 11

reasonably understood to convey any specific meaning at all.” 

Geffner, 928 F.3d at 200.

Becerra also cites two 2014 ABA blog posts that she

claims support her allegation that reasonable consumers

understand “diet” to promise weight loss. But the content of

these articles emphasize that other lifestyle changes beyond

merely drinking diet soft drinks are necessary to see weightloss results.

Finally, Becerra’s third amended complaint summarizes

the results of a 2018 survey of 400 California soft-drink

consumers and 400 nationwide soft-drink consumers. 

Becerra alleges that this survey “confirms that the vast

majority of consumers expect a diet soft drink to either help

them lose weight, or help maintain or not affect their weight.”

As the district court noted, it is difficult to tell what

questions the survey asked to reach its conclusions, but it

appears to have asked four questions to gauge consumer

expectations of diet soft drinks related to one’s weight. Of

the California consumers, only 12.5 percent expected diet soft

drinks to help them lose weight (compared to 15 percent

nationwide), while 63.3 percent expected diet soft drinks to

help maintain/not affect their weight (compared to 62 percent

nationwide).

The survey cannot, on its own, salvage Becerra’s claim. 

Although we must accept the allegations surrounding the

survey as true at this stage of the litigation, a reasonable

consumer would still understand “diet” in this context to be

a relative claim about the calorie or sugar content of the

product. The survey does not address this understanding or

the equally reasonable understanding that consuming lowCase: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 11 of 12
12 BECERRA V. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP

calorie products will impact one’s weight only to the extent

that weight loss relies on consuming fewer calories overall. 

At bottom, the survey does not shift the prevailing reasonable

understanding of what reasonable consumers understand the

word “diet” to mean or make plausible the allegation that

reasonable consumers are misled by the term “diet.”

Taken together, the allegations in the complaint fail to

sufficiently allege that reasonable consumers read the word

“diet” in a soft drink’s brand name to promise weight loss,

healthy weight management, or other health benefits. 

Without this piece of the puzzle, Becerra’s consumer-fraud

claims fail.4

IV

Becerra has failed to sufficiently allege that reasonable

consumers understand the word “diet” in Diet Dr Pepper’s

brand name to promise weight loss, healthy weight

management, or other health benefits. Accordingly, Becerra

has not sufficiently alleged that Diet Dr Pepper’s labeling is

false or misleading and dismissal was therefore proper.

AFFIRMED.

4 Becerra also argues that the district court failed to account for her

deceptive-omission theory of recovery. But this claim fails for the same

reason her false-and-misleading theory does. Because she has failed to

sufficiently allege a weight-loss promise from Dr Pepper, there was

nothing deceptive about Dr Pepper not disclosing to consumers the alleged

possibility of weight gain.

Case: 18-16721, 12/30/2019, ID: 11545907, DktEntry: 49-1, Page 12 of 12