AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

Maia C. Kats (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

mkats@cspinet.org 

Matthew B. Simon (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

msimon@cspinet.org 

1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 3000 

Washington, District of Columbia 20005 

Telephone: (202) 777-8381 

REESE LLP 

Michael R. Reese (State Bar No. 206773) 

mreese@reesellp.com 

100 W. 93rd Street, 16th floor 

New York, New York 10025 

Telephone: (212) 643-0500 

THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE 

Andrew Rainer (to be admitted pro hac vice) 

arainer@phaionline.org 

360 Huntington Ave., Suite 117 CU 

Boston, Massachusetts 02115 

Telephone: (617) 373-2026 

Counsel for Plaintiff The Praxis Project 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

THE PRAXIS PROJECT, a non-profit 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and 

AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 

RELIEF 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Plaintiff The Praxis Project (“Praxis” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action against The CocaCola Company (“Coca-Cola”) and the American Beverage Association (“ABA”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants are based on information and belief 

and on investigation of Plaintiff’s counsel, except for allegations specifically pertaining to 

Plaintiff, which are based on Plaintiff’s personal knowledge. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action under the California Unfair Competition Law and False 

Advertising Law to enjoin Coca-Cola and the ABA from engaging in false and misleading 

marketing of sugar-sweetened beverages.1

 Plaintiff also asserts claims for the intentional and 

negligent breach of a special duty. 

2. Coca-Cola, the leading manufacturer and supplier in the world of sugarsweetened beverages, deceives consumers about their health impact. It does so independently, 

and also with the assistance of and through statements made by the American Beverage 

Association, a trade organization which Coca-Cola funds and materially directs. 

3. For years, Defendants have engaged in a pattern of deception to mislead and 

confuse the public (and governmental entities that bear responsibility for the public health) about 

the scientific consensus that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity, type 

2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

4. Defendant Coca-Cola has also engaged in a pattern of deception to mislead the 

public (and governmental entities that bear responsibility for the public health) regarding its 

advertising to children. 

5. Although Defendants have publicly pledged allegiance to objective scientific 

criteria, they have instead represented falsely that sugar-sweetened beverages are not 

scientifically linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and have waged an 

 

1

 “Sugar-sweetened beverage” refers to any carbonated or non-carbonated drink that is sweetened 

with sugar or high fructose corn syrup, or other caloric sweeteners, including soda, fruit drinks, teas, 

coffees, sports drinks, and energy drinks. CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, THE CDC

GUIDE TO STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES 4 

(2010), http://goo.gl/OWgFs. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

aggressive campaign of disinformation about the health consequences of consuming sugarsweetened beverages. 

6. Defendants have undertaken these actions even though they know and have 

known that sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to serious medical conditions, including 

obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, when consumed regularly. 

7. Although Defendant Coca-Cola promised that it would not advertise sugarsweetened beverages to children, it has advertised to children on a massive scale. 

8. A primary purpose of these ongoing campaigns of disinformation and 

misrepresentation is to maintain and increase the sales of sugar-sweetened beverages, and to 

thwart and delay efforts of government entities to regulate sugar-sweetened beverages through 

warning labels, taxes, and other measures designed to make consumers aware of the potential for 

harm. 

9. Defendants have engaged in this conduct despite knowing that sugar-sweetened 

beverages are scientifically linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and these 

diseases are at epidemic levels in California and the United States. 

10. Each year, millions of Californians, and others across the United States, will 

either develop, or develop the markers for, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular 

disease, owing at least in part to consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. 

11. Each year, Coca-Cola reaps huge profits from the sale of its sugar-sweetened 

beverages. 

12. Each year, Coca-Cola spends billions of dollars on misleading and deceptive 

promotions and advertising that have enormous appeal to consumers, including children, which 

advertising effects persist over years. 

13. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for the conduct alleged in the complaint. Among 

other things, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to require the Defendants to: publicly 

disclose their files on the potential health implications of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages; 

fund a public education campaign to educate consumers about the association between sugarsweetened beverage consumption and obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease; cease 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prospectively all deceptive advertising and promotions that imply in any manner that sugarsweetened beverage consumption is not linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, 

and conversely is healthy; and, in the case of Coca-Cola, cease all advertising that reaches 

children under the age of 12 in significant numbers. 

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Praxis is a nonprofit corporation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code, with offices in Oakland, California, and Washington, DC. Plaintiff’s 

mission is to build healthier communities, and through the efforts of its staff, Plaintiff engages in 

significant advocacy relating to sugar-sweetened beverages and the health consequences of their 

frequent consumption. Plaintiff’s work is well recognized, including but not limited to the 

efforts of its Executive Director, Xavier Morales. As alleged in more detail below, Plaintiff has 

diverted significant resources to its advocacy concerning sugar-sweetened beverages. This 

diversion has prevented Plaintiff from allocating resources to other projects that advance 

healthier communities. Plaintiff could have avoided many of these expenditures if Defendants 

had not engaged in deception about the consequences of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages, 

consistent with its legal duty. 

15. Defendant Coca-Cola is a public corporation, organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Coca-Cola describes itself 

as the largest manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and 

syrups in the world, many of which are sugar-sweetened beverages, including its flagship CocaCola, or Coke. In 2012, Coca-Cola’s gross profits were $28.96 billion.2

 In 2012, its advertising 

budget was $3.34 billion.3

16. Defendant American Beverage Association is a trade association headquartered in 

Washington, DC that represents the manufacturers, bottlers and distributors of various drinks, 

 

2

 The Coca-Cola Co., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 50 (Feb. 27, 2013), http://goo.gl/RzMbtF (FY 

2012). 

3 Id. at 54. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

including sugar-sweetened beverages. Coca-Cola executives help manage and direct the ABA, 

and materially fund its operations.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332 because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000. 

18. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Coca-Cola because it 

conducts substantial business in this district and throughout the State of California, and over 

Defendant American Beverage Association because it has made statements in this district and 

has specifically sought to influence consumer perceptions on sugar-sweetened beverages in this 

district. 

19. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

number of the acts and omissions alleged herein occurred within this district. 

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

I. HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE 

CONSUMPTION 

20. The American Heart Association recommends a daily maximum of six (6) 

teaspoons of added sugar for adult women and children, and nine (9) teaspoons for men.4 

21. A 16-ounce bottle of Coke, by comparison, has 12 teaspoons of sugar, a 15-

ounce bottle of Coca-Cola’s Minute Maid Cranberry Grape Juice Beverage has approximately 13 

teaspoons of added sugar, and a 20-ounce bottle of the company’s vitaminwater has 8 

teaspoons.5

 Twelve teaspoons of sugar is 200% of the AHA recommended daily maximum for 

women, and more than twice the sugar content of a Twix candy bar.6 

 

4 Added Sugars, AM. HEART ASS’N, http://goo.gl/PoigAa (last visited Jan. 4, 2017). 

5

 Of the parents who purchased vitaminwater for their children, 78% thought it was healthy. Tina 

Rosenberg, Labeling the Danger in Soda, N.Y. TIMES (March 30, 2016), http://goo.gl/TnryHW. 

6 Id.
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Sugar-sweetened beverages are the leading source of added sugars in the 

American diet.7

23. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is scientifically linked to obesity, type 2 

diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

24. Stronger evidence links these diseases with the consumption of sugar-sweetened 

beverages than with the consumption of added sugar in non-liquid forms.8

 

25. Numerous governmental and medical bodies have recognized this link, including 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory 

Committee, the Institute of Medicine, the American Heart Association, the Obesity Society, and 

the World Health Organization, and have urged reduction of sugar-sweetened beverage 

consumption, mainly as a means to address the epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and/or 

cardiovascular disease. 

26. Consistent with these conclusions and recommendations, and after entertaining 

key expert testimony, this Court found that the warning required on certain sugar-sweetened 

beverage advertisements in San Francisco—which reads, “WARNING: Drinking beverages 

with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay”—is “factual and 

accurate.”9 

 

7

 U.S.DEP’T OF AGRIC.&U.S.DEP’T OF HEALTH &HUMAN SERVS., SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF THE 2015

DIETARY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 148 fig. D1.36 (2015) (DIETARY GUIDELINES 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE), http://goo.gl/2rc9v3. 

8

 CREDIT SUISSE, SUGAR CONSUMPTION AT A CROSSROADS 8–9 (2013), https://goo.gl/7rMhXY; 

Expert Report of Walter Willett at ¶ 10, Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 

3:15-cv-03415-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 23, 2016) (“Willett Report”). 

9 Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 3:15-cv-03415-EMC, 2016 WL 2865893, 

at *18 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27. Studies tracking thousands of adults for years show that those who consume 

sugar-sweetened beverages have higher rates of obesity and obesity-related chronic diseases.10 

28. One highly regarded study (double-blind, randomized controlled intervention trial 

(“RCT”)) involving 641 Dutch children reported that those who were given just one 8-ounce 

sugar-sweetened drink a day gained more weight and body fat over 11⁄2 years than those who 

were given sugar-free drinks. Similar findings have been reported in a number of other clinical 

trials on adults and children.11 

29. Scientific research has also established a link between the consumption of sugarsweetened beverages and type 2 diabetes, which is only partly due to the impact of sugarsweetened beverages on weight gain. 

 

10 See, e.g., Ravi Dhingra et al., Soft Drink Consumption and Risk of Developing Cardiometabolic 

Risk Factors and the Metabolic Syndrome in Middle-Aged Adults in the Community, 116 

CIRCULATION 480 (2007); Frank B. Hu & Vasanti S. Malik, Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of 

Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: Epidemiologic Evidence, 100 PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAV. 47 (2010); 

Vasanti S. Malik et al., Sugar Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain in Children and Adults: A 

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 98 AM.J.CLINICAL NUTRITION 1084 (2013); Julie R. Palmer 

et al., Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in African American 

Women, 168 ARCHIVES INTERNAL MED. 1487 (2008); Qibin Qi et al., Sugar-Sweetened Beverages 

and Genetic Risk of Obesity, 367 NEW ENG.J. MED. 1387 (2012); Matthias B. Schulze et al., SugarSweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged 

Women, 292 JAMA 927 (2004); Jiantao Ma, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage but Not Diet Soda 

Consumption Is Positively Associated with Progression of Insulin Resistance, J. OF NUTRITION

234047 (Nov. 9, 2016), 

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/11/09/jn.116.234047.full.pdf+html. 

11 Janne C. de Ruyter et al., A Trial of Sugar-Free or Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Body Weight 

in Children, 367 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1397 (2012); see also Cara B. Ebbeling et al., A Randomized 

Trial of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Adolescent Body Weight, 367 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1407 

(2012); Cara B. Ebbeling et al., Effects of Decreasing Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption on 

Body Weight in Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study, 117 PEDIATRICS 673 (2006); 

Janet James et al., Preventing Childhood Obesity by Reducing Consumption of Carbonated Drinks: 

Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial, 328 BMJ 1237 (2004); Anne Raben et al., Increased 

Postprandial Glycaemia, Insulinemia, and Lipidemia After 10 Weeks’ Sucrose-Rich Diet Compared 

to an Artificially Sweetened Diet: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 55 FOOD NUTRITION RES. 5961 

(2011); Anne Raben et al., Sucrose Compared with Artificial Sweeteners: Different Effects on Ad 

Libitum Food Intake and Body Weight After 10 Wk of Supplementation in Overweight Subjects, 76 

AM.J.CLINICAL NUTRITION 721 (2002); Michael G. Tordoff & Anne M. Alleva, Effect of Drinking 

Soda Sweetened with Aspartame or High-Fructose Corn Syrup on Food Intake and Body Weight, 51 

AM. J. CLINICAL NUTRITION 963 (1990). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. Put another way, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to an 

increase in type 2 diabetes even after researchers account for the impact of sugar-sweetened 

beverages on weight.12 

31. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee concluded that “[s]trong 

evidence shows that higher consumption of added sugars, especially sugar sweetened beverages, 

increases the risk of type 2 diabetes among adults and this relationship is not fully explained by 

body weight.”13 

32. Scientific studies also link sugar-sweetened beverage consumption to a higher risk 

of other obesity-related conditions, including coronary heart disease and stroke (collectively, 

cardiovascular disease).14 

33. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials concluded 

that higher intakes of sugars are associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease including 

 

12 Ravi Dhingra et al., Soft Drink Consumption and Risk of Developing Cardiometabolic Risk 

Factors and the Metabolic Syndrome in Middle-Aged Adults in the Community, 116 CIRCULATION

480 (2007); Darren C. Greenwood et al., Association Between Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially 

Sweetened Soft Drinks and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Dose-Response MetaAnalysis of Prospective Studies, 112 BRIT. J. NUTRITION 725 (2014); Fumiaki Imamura et al., 

Consumption of Sugar Sweetened Beverages, Artificially Sweetened Beverages, and Fruit Juice and 

Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Estimation of Population 

Attributable Fraction, 351 BMJ h3576 (2015); Lawrence de Koning et al., Sugar-Sweetened and 

Artificially Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Men, 93 AM. J.

CLINICAL NUTRITION 1321 (2011); Vasanti S. Malik et al., Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of 

Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis, 33 DIABETES CARE 2477 (2010); 

Andrew O. Odegaard et al., Soft Drink and Juice Consumption and Risk of Physician-Diagnosed 

Incident Type 2 Diabetes, 171 AM. J. EPIDEMIOLOGY 701 (2010); Julie R. Palmer et al., SugarSweetened Beverages and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in African American Women, 168 

ARCHIVES INTERNAL MED. 1487 (2008); Matthias B. Schulze et al., Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, 

Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women, 292 JAMA 927 

(2004); The InterAct Consortium, Consumption of Sweet Beverages and Type 2 Diabetes Incidence 

in European Adults: Results from EPIC-InterAct, 56 DIABETOLOGIA 1520 (2013). 

13 DIETARY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, supra note 7, at Part D, Chapter 6, p. 20; accord 

Willett Report, supra note 8, at ¶ 51 (“Findings from well-designed prospective cohort studies have 

shown a strong and consistent association between SSB consumption and diabetes.”). 

14 Adam M. Bernstein et al., Soda Consumption and the Risk of Stroke in Men and Women, 95 AM.J.

CLINICAL NUTRITION 1190 (2012); Lawrence de Koning et al., Sweetened Beverage Consumption, 

Incident Coronary Heart Disease, and Biomarkers of Risk in Men, 125 CIRCULATION 1735 (2012); 

Teresa T. Fung et al., Sweetened Beverage Consumption and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in 

Women, 89 AM. J. CLINICAL NUTRITION 1037 (2009). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

higher levels of triglycerides, LDL ("bad") cholesterol, and blood pressure, and that "the relation 

is independent of effects of sugars on body weight.15 

34. Thus, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee said, “higher intake of added 

sugars, especially in the form of sugar-sweetened beverages, is consistently associated with 

increased risk of hypertension, stroke, and [cardiovascular disease] in adults.”16

35. Likewise, “[T]he recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, the American 

Heart Association, the Obesity Society, and many other organizations [are] to reduce the 

consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in both children and adults.”17 

36. This is because the “consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages causes excess 

weight gain and is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease; 

thus, these beverages are unique dietary contributors to obesity and related chronic diseases.”18 

37. Today, roughly one-third of children and two-thirds of adults in the United States 

are overweight or obese.19 Since 1980, obesity rates in the United States have tripled in 

children,20 and doubled in adults. 21 

 

15 Te Morenga LA, et al. Dietary Sugars and Cardiometabolic Risk: Systematic Review and 

Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Effects on Blood Pressure and Lipids, AM. J. CLINICAL NUTRITION 65-79 (2014). 16 DIETARY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, supra note 7, at Part D, Chapter 6, p. 20. 

17 Sonia Caprio, Calories from Soft Drinks—Do They Matter?, 367 NEW ENG. J. MED. 1462, 1463 

(2012). 

18 Vasanti S. Malik & Frank B. Hu, Fructose and Cardiometabolic Health: What the Evidence from 

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tells Us, 66 J. AM. C. CARDIOLOGY 1615 (2015). 

19 Cynthia L. Ogden et al., Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011–

2012, 311 JAMA 806 (2014). Worldwide, according to McKinsey & Company, “almost half of the 

world’s adult population could be overweight or obese by 2030.” MCKINSEY GLOB. INST.,

OVERCOMING OBESITY: AN INITIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 11 (2014) (internal citation omitted). The 

McKinsey Report added a critical public health perspective: the 2.1 billion obese or overweight 

people in the world is two and a half times the number of undernourished people. Id. at 14. 

20 CYNTHIA OGDEN & MARGARET CARROLL, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION,

PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: UNITED STATES, TRENDS 1963–

1965 THROUGH 2007–2008, at 5 (2010), https://goo.gl/6afktw. 

21 CHERYL D. FRYAR, MARGARET D.CARROLL &CYNTHIA L.OGDEN,CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL 

&PREVENTION, PREVALENCE OF OVERWEIGHT, OBESITY, AND EXTREME OBESITY AMONG ADULTS:

UNITED STATES, 1960–1962 THROUGH 2011–2012, at tbl. 2 (2014), http://goo.gl/dc2UHy. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38. Fifty-five percent (55%) of adult Californians are estimated to have diagnosed 

diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, or pre-diabetes.22 

39. Forty-six percent (46%) of adults in the United States have pre-diabetes or 

diabetes.23 

40. Estimates on the annual cost of medical care and premature mortality attributable 

to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages are astronomical. For example, in New York 

City alone, the figure is estimated at between $16.4 billion and $17.96 billion.24 

II. DEFENDANTS’ FALSE PROMISES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS 

41. In 2012, faced with an established and growing body of scientific research linking 

its products to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, Coca-Cola and the ABA 

ramped up their campaign of misrepresentation and deception. 

42. Around the same time, various other city, county, and state regulators, as well as 

foreign governments, were openly discussing a variety of measures intended to address the 

epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and consumer misperceptions of 

sugar-sweetened beverages and their potential for harm. 

43. To combat this perceived threat to the security of the company’s products and 

corporate profitability, Coca-Cola executives embarked on an intensive public speaking and 

marketing campaign in which they knowingly made material misrepresentations and omissions 

to the public and, upon information and belief, to various governmental entities tasked with 

protecting the public health, about the health consequences of consuming their sugar-sweetened 

beverage products. 

 

22 SUSAN H. BABEY ET AL., UCLA CTR. FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH, 

PREDIABETES IN CALIFORNIA: NEARLY HALF OF CALIFORNIA ADULTS ON PATH TO 

DIABETES 1 (2016), https://goo.gl/f3NKqI.

23 NATIONAL DIABETES STATICS REPORT OF THE CDC (2014),

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf. 

24 Shi-Ling Hsu, A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Sugary Drink Regulation in New York City, 10 J. FOOD 

L. & POL’Y 73, 103 tbl. 12 (2014). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44. In particular, Coca-Cola falsely propounded that sugar-sweetened beverages are 

not linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. 

45. As part of this misrepresentation, Coca-Cola executives and agents misleadingly 

sought to divert focus from sugar-sweetened beverage consumption to a purported lack of 

exercise as the explanation for the rise in obesity-related chronic conditions, despite the fact that 

they knew this explanation was not scientifically sound. To do this, Coca-Cola employed, and 

together with the American Beverage Association continues to employ, various euphemisms like 

“balance,” “calories in, calories out,” and “mixify.” 

46. Defendants have made these representations in the face of an overwhelming body 

of evidence establishing that sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to obesity, diabetes, and 

cardiovascular disease, and that exercise alone—particularly of the type promoted by 

Defendants—does not protect consumers from these harms. 

47. Defendants continue to deny that sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to 

obesity, diabetes type-2, and cardiovascular disease, and continue to misrepresent the science on 

sugar-sweetened beverages despite widespread agreement in the scientific and medical 

communities that sugar-sweetened beverages are a primary cause of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and 

cardiovascular disease. 

48. In addition to engaging in this deceptive campaign to promote false facts to 

consumers, Coca-Cola also took the following actions to respond to the growing scientific 

evidence linking consumption of its products to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular 

disease: (A) it secretly funded and publicly promoted biased scientific research, and intentionally 

mischaracterized objective scientific research on sugar-sweetened-beverage-consumption; (B) it 

funded and worked with the American Beverage Association to organize expensive initiatives 

that promoted exercise, or “balance,” in California, across the United States, and globally, as an 

alternative to reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages; and (C) it ran false and 

misleading advertising campaigns. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. False Representations to Consumers by Coca-Cola and Its Front Groups 

49. Faced with a growing scientific consensus linking its products to obesity, type 2 

diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, Coca-Cola’s top scientists and executives have 

unambiguously pledged and represented to the public that sugar-sweetened beverage 

consumption is not linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. Coca-Cola’s 

representatives have done so despite actual knowledge of facts to the contrary. 

50. Coca-Cola knew or should have known that consumers (and regulatory agencies 

responsible for protecting their health) would consider the Coca-Cola’s representations material 

to their decisions whether to purchase Coca-Cola’s sugar-sweetened beverages, decisions that 

consumers otherwise would have modified had Coca-Cola been truthful in its representations and 

its public pledges about promoting unbiased science. 

51. Coca-Cola’s Senior Vice President, Katie Bayne, has repeatedly been quoted 

stating that “[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity.”25

52. Coca-Cola’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Ivester, has 

made similar high publicity misrepresentations, such as that “Coca-Cola is an excellent 

complement to the habits of a healthy life.”26

53. Coca-Cola also funded “front” groups, such as the Global Energy Balance 

Network (“GEBN”) and the European Hydration Institute (“EHI”), that are presented to the 

public as disinterested research entities but are or were actually Coca-Cola-funded and used by 

Coca-Cola to more effectively misrepresent, suppress, and confuse the facts about sugarsweetened beverages and their health dangers. 

54. Dr. Steven Blair, the vice president of GEBN, which claimed to fund unbiased 

research into causes of obesity, put it this way: “Most of the focus in the popular media and the 

scientific press . . . blames . . . sugary drinks [for the obesity epidemic], and there is really 

 

25 Bruce Horovitz, Coke Says Obesity Grew as Sugar Drink Consumption Fell, USATODAY (June 7, 

2012), http://goo.gl/w0jFU2 (statement by Coke executive Katie Bayne). 

26 The Unhappy Truth About Soda, CTR. FOR SCI. IN THE PUB.INTEREST, http://www.therealbears.org/

(last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

13 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause. Those of us interested in science, 

public health, medicine, we have to learn how to get the right information out there.”27 

55. In 2015, claiming to be “the voice of science,” GEBN touted “strong evidence” 

that the key to preventing weight gain is not reducing sugar-sweetened beverage intake, “but 

maintaining an active lifestyle and eating more calories.”28 

56. EHI touts the same message in Europe.29 Notably, like GEBN, EHI professes 

independence.30 However, Coca-Cola co-founded EHI, and its Director, Dr. Jane Holdsworth, is 

a paid Coca-Cola consultant.31

57. Whether through GEBN, or various universities, Coca-Cola spent approximately 

$120 million, between 2010–2015 alone, surreptitiously funding various research and programs 

intending to confuse and misrepresent the science on the link between sugar-sweetened 

beverages and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.32 

58. An analysis of beverage studies published in PLOS Medicine found that those 

funded by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association were five times more 

likely to find no link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity than studies whose authors 

reported no financial conflicts.33 A recent study found by Dr. Schillinger of the University of 

 

27 CrossFit, Dr. Steven Blair of Coca-Cola and ACSM’s Global Energy Balance Network, YOUTUBE (Sept. 10, 2015), https://goo.gl/h14Yq8. 

28 Anahad O’Connor, Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away from Bad 

Diets, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 9 2015), http://goo.gl/tpfrg7 (quoting GEBN’s now-discontinued 

website). See also Anahad O’Connor, Coke’s Chief Scientist, Who Orchestrated Obesity 

Research, Is Leaving, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 24, 2015), http://goo.gl/u33ZNF (while Coca-Cola said 

it had no influence on GEBN, “reports show that Dr. Applebaum and other executives at Coke 

helped pick the group’s leaders, create its mission statement and design its website”). 

29 EUROPEAN HYDRATION INST., http://goo.gl/JEKIb (last visited Sept. 15, 2016). 

30 “The members of the Science Advisory Board of the EHI do not have any conflicts of interest with 

any commercial organization.” Id. (quote de-italicized). 

31 What Is the European Hydration Institute?, EUROPEAN HYDRATION INST., http://goo.gl/TGOr6W 

(last modified June 14, 2016; last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

32 Anahad O’Connor, Coke Discloses Millions in Grants for Health Research and Community 

Programs, N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 22, 2015), http://goo.gl/hK48HC. 

33 Anahad O’Connor, Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away from Bad 

Diets, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 9 2015), http://goo.gl/tpfrg7 (referencing Maira Bes-Rastrollo et al., 

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association Between Sugar-
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

14 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California San Francisco’s Division of General Internal Medicine and Center for Vulnerable

Populations, found an even greater impact. He found that 26 of 26 “negative” studies (finding no 

link between SSBs and obesity), or 100%, received funding from the soda industry, and only 

one of 34 “positive” studies received industry funding. His research led him to conclude that 

“[t]he SSB industry appears to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create 

controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public’s health.”34

59. Just as the tobacco industry formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee in 

1953 to respond to scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer, Coca-Cola’s strategy was 

one of “cultivating relationships” with scientists as a way to “balance the debate” on sugarsweetened beverages.35 Dr. Rhona Applebaum, Coca-Cola’s “Chief Science and Health Officer” 

was put in charge of locating such scientists. 

60. Applebaum funded Dr. James Hill, of the University of Colorado, for example, 

after he explicitly proposed publishing research that would help Coca-Cola fend off criticism 

about its products by shifting the blame for obesity to lack of physical activity. “I . . . could 

provide a strong rationale for why a company selling sugar water should focus on promoting 

physical activity. This would be a very large and expensive study, but could be a game changer. 

We need this study to be done.”36 

 

Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain, 10 PLOS MEDICINE e1001578 (2013)). Another analysis 

found that beverage industry-funding studies are as much as eight times more likely to be favorable 

to industry’s marketing interests. Willett Report, supra note 8, at ¶ 27 (citing Leonard I. Lesser et 

al., Relationship Between Funding Source and Conclusion Among Nutrition-Related Scientific 

Articles, 4 PLOS MEDICINE e5 (2007)). 

34 Dr. Dean Schillinger, Do Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Cause Obesity and Diabetes? Industry 

and the Manufacture of Scientific Controversy, ANN AM. MEDICINE (NOV. 2016),

https://WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV/PUBMED/27802504. 

35 Anahad O’Connor, Coke’s Chief Scientist, Who Orchestrated Obesity Research, Is Leaving, N.Y. 

TIMES (Nov. 24, 2015), http://goo.gl/u33ZNF. 

36 Id.
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

15 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. Dr. Hill further added, “I want to help your company avoid the image of being a 

problem in people’s lives and back to being a company that brings important and fun things to 

them.”37

62. Coca-Cola’s Chief Executive Officer, Muhtar Kent, directed Dr. Applebaum to 

seek to persuade CBS to invite Dr. Hill on “CBS This Morning,” so as to have him help shape 

media coverage about sugar-sweetened beverages.38 

63. Meanwhile, Dr. Applebaum and various scientists misrepresented to the public 

and consumers that the science Coca-Cola was funding constituted totally independent research 

efforts with completely unrestricted funding. 

64. Similarly, James Quincey, who is slated to become Defendant’s CEO as of May 

2017, has repeatedly publicized that Coca-Cola’s role is to “get information [about obesity and 

SSBs] into people’s hands” to empower their “choices.” Put another way, that Defendant is “not 

trying to hide the information,” instead pledging that “we are focused on getting the information 

out there.” Contemporaneously, he shifted responsibility for the obesity and diabetes epidemics 

away from sugar-sweetened beverages and, explicitly, to a lack of activity, claiming that sugarsweetened beverages constitute less than 2% of all calories, and by implication, bear only a tiny 

fraction of responsibility for the obesity epidemic.39 

65. Coca-Cola’s representations as to the state of the science, and about sponsoring 

independent and objective research and “bringing the facts to light,” were false and deceptive. 

They were made to gain the trust of the consuming public and to cast doubt on the substantial, 

credible science linking Coca-Cola’s products to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

66. Likewise, Coca-Cola funded and guided industry groups in promoting its 

deceptive campaign. 

 

37 Id.

38 Id.

39 BBC Interview by Jeremy Paxman with James Quincey, in London, England (Nov. 27, 2013), 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWLQaz8nhQw (last visited Jan. 4, 2017).
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

16 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. Defendant ABA, for example, is a trade association of soda manufacturers 

financed extensively by Coca-Cola. Sandy Douglas, President of Coca-Cola North America, sits 

on the board of directors of the ABA, along with six other Coca-Cola executives and affiliate 

executives, including Claude Nielsen of Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, who is also an exofficio officer.40 

68. Beyond its management function, Coca-Cola principally funds the ABA, treating 

it as an arm of Coke’s public relations enterprise. Coca-Cola executives commonly refer to 

“working an issue through” the ABA. 

69. As of September 2016, the ABA’s website was replete with misleading and 

materially incomplete representations about the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and 

obesity-related chronic diseases. For example, the following omits entirely the prominent role 

played by routine sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in the rise of obesity and related 

chronic diseases: 

Soda is a hot topic. And the conversation is full of opinions and myths, but not 

enough facts. America’s beverage companies created this site to clear a few things 

up about the products we make. So read on. Learn. And share the clarity. 

* * * 

Fact: Obesity. Obesity is a complex condition, that can’t be boiled down to one 

specific product or ingredient. Many health organizations, including the Mayo 

Clinic, have found multiple risk factors including genetics, ages, and even lack of 

sleep. 

* * * 

Focusing on [soda]—ignores the bigger problem and doesn’t offer real solutions.41 

 

40 Board of Directors, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N, https://goo.gl/8lo6w (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

41 Am. Beverage Ass’n, Home, LET’S CLEAR IT UP, http://goo.gl/Ft8VNp (last visited Sept. 16, 

2016); Am. Beverage Ass’n, Health, LET’S CLEAR IT UP, http://goo.gl/NZCwGy (last visited Sept. 

16, 2016); Am. Beverage Ass’n, Beverages, LET’S CLEAR IT UP, http://goo.gl/D1o8EI (last visited 

Sept. 16, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

17 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

70. Other red herrings advanced by the ABA include discussions of high fructose 

corn syrup (“HFCS”)—which is irrelevant because whether sugar-sweetened beverages are 

sweetened with HFCS or traditional sugar, their link with disease is established: 

Myth: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) causes obesity and diabetes. 

Fact: Actually, the American Medical Association has concluded that HFCS . . . is 

not a unique contributor to either obesity or type 2 diabetes. In fact, HFCS is so 

similar to sucrose (table sugar) that your body can’t tell the difference between the 

two and processes both in the same way.42

71. ABA press releases follow the same approach, including: 

 “You may have read articles recently suggesting that there is something 

unique about soda when it comes to diabetes. Yes, diabetes. It’s always 

something if you’re reading the headlines. But if you dig deep enough, 

there’s no ‘there’ there”;43

 “[T]here’s nothing unique about beverage calories when it comes to obesity 

or any other health condition. Sadly, however, the days of simply enjoying a 

refreshing beverage are under assault – that is, if you choose to listen to our 

critics”;44

 “Sugar isn’t the enemy, the problem is calories. . . . demonizing [] sugar isn’t 

going to improve public health”;45 

 “[T]he attack on added sugars is not founded on the totality of scientific 

evidence. . . . Like past false food scares, the anti-soda campaign misleads 

people with unsound science”;46

 

42 Am. Beverage Ass’n, Obesity, LET’S CLEAR IT UP, http://goo.gl/AAUPzD (last visited Sept. 16, 

2016). 

43 Cut Through the Headlines and Get the Facts, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (Nov. 8, 2013), 

http://goo.gl/s1w3eK (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

44 Simply Soda. . . ., AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (June 11, 2012), http://goo.gl/JstcDx (last visited Sept. 

16, 2016). 

45 Experts: Blaming Sugar Won’t Yield Results, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (Oct. 1, 2015), 

http://goo.gl/19E0Gm (quoting, in part, Dr. John L. Sievenpiper) (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

18 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 “You may have seen some attention to research presented at an American 

Heart Association meeting that suggests that drinking two or more sugarsweetened beverages per day increases the risk of cardiovascular disease 

among women. It’s always worth questioning a news report on a study if it 

only presents one side”;47

 “In 1984, President Ronald Reagan designated July as National Ice Cream 

Month, recognizing ice cream as a fun and nutritious food that 90% of our 

population enjoys. . . . [W]e want to remind you to grab a beverage to go with 

your ice cream. It’s important to stay hydrated, especially in these warm 

summer months”;48

 “Despite what you may read in frequent stories that come out in the media, 

sugar-sweetened beverages are not a unique driver of public health concerns 

such as obesity and diabetes. Simply put, it is wrong to say beverages cause 

disease”;49

 “[A]ll calories are the same regardless of food source. . . . 100 calories from a 

donut or a yogurt is still 100 calories”;50

 “Recently we’ve seen some food activists allege that sugar-sweetened 

beverages ‘cause’ obesity, diabetes and a host of other adverse health 

 

46 The Added Sugar Fantasy, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (June 17, 2015), http://goo.gl/JngEQA (last 

visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

47 Here We Go Again . . . ., AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (Nov. 14, 2011), http://goo.gl/0Ywg96 (last 

visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

48 Did You Get Your Ice Cream, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (July 26, 2013), http://goo.gl/Y1emwi (last 

visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

49 Taking a Closer Look at Recent Studies on Diabetes, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (July 23, 2015), 

http://goo.gl/JQtXgK (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

50 Setting the Record Straight on Calories, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (Sept. 16, 2015), 

http://goo.gl/0HVYB3 (quoting Megan Meyer, PhD, program manager of health and wellness 

communications at the Int’l Food Info. Council—a Coca-Cola-funded group) (last visited Sept. 16, 

2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

19 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conditions. Obviously they are hoping you never look at the science behind 

their claims. Because it doesn’t exist”;51

 “According to leading health organizations, beverage consumption is not a 

known risk factor for type 2 diabetes . . .”;52 or 

 “Overconsumption of anything (even water) can be risky.”53

72. The ABA’s Americans for Food and Beverage Choice regularly pushes 

misrepresentations through multiple media outlets as well. Such as statements that: 

 “Managing diabetes is all about balancing what you eat with your activity 

level. . . . A daily soda is fine”;54

 “[E]liminating soda and sugary beverages from your diet will not save your 

health any more than over-emphasizing fruits and vegetables;”55 and 

 “The same holds true for headlines that say drinking soda can cause obesity, 

type 2 diabetes, or heart disease. What’s missing from those unfounded 

statements is any evidence from randomized clinical trials.”56

73. Coca-Cola also pays individual health professionals to promote sugar-sweetened 

beverages. According to Coca-Cola spokesperson Ben Sheidler, Coca-Cola “ha[s] a network of 

dietitians we work with.” In February of 2015, these dietitians wrote numerous online pieces for 

 

51 Clearing up the Conversation on Beverages, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N (June 24, 2015), 

http://goo.gl/tkL2Se (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

52 Beverage Industry Responds to British Medical Journal Paper on Diabetes, AM.BEVERAGE ASS’N

(July 22, 2015), goo.gl/mwdZYu (last visited Jan. 13, 2017). 

53 Overconsumption of Anything (Even Water) Can Be Risky, AM.BEVERAGE ASS’N (Aug. 3, 2015), 

http://goo.gl/SvKeb2 (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

54 Amy Myrdal Miller, You Can’t Eat That! And Other Bad Advice, AMS. FOR FOOD & BEVERAGE 

CHOICE (Apr. 25, 2016), http://goo.gl/htslCQ (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

55 Kim Galeaz, Veggie Halos and Soda Demons, AMS. FOR FOOD & BEVERAGE CHOICE (Jan. 12, 

2015), https://goo.gl/t5xdD2 (last visited Jan. 13, 2017). 

56 Robyn Flipse, Bacon, Soda, and Longevity – What’s the Connection, AMS. FOR FOOD &

BEVERAGE CHOICE (Aug. 24, 2015), http://goo.gl/bH58TU (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

20 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

American Heart Month, each including the suggestion that a soda could be a healthy snack, “like 

. . . packs of almonds.”57 

74. While designed to look like regular stories, the pieces were sponsored by CocaCola, and ran in 1,000 or more news outlets. Sometimes the authors indicated that they were 

“consultants,” other times not—but rarely if ever did any disclaimer make clear that Coca-Cola 

paid for the columns even though such nutritionists presented themselves as trustworthy 

authorities.58 

B. Balance & Hydration: Coca-Cola’s Deceptive Advertising Campaign

75. As part of its concerted campaign to shift attention away from the substantial, 

credible science linking sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular 

disease, Coca-Cola also developed a direct advertising campaign that falsely and misleadingly 

promoted to consumers that they could “balance” their consumption of sugar-sweetened 

beverages with exercise and through careful monitoring of “calories-in, calories-out.” 

76. Directly through its own advertising and through the ABA, Coca-Cola falsely and 

misleadingly advertised that balance—of calories in and calories out—enables healthful 

consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and prevents obesity. 

77. However, the scientific consensus is that exercise, especially light exercise like 

the “75 seconds of laughing out loud” featured in one ad by Coca-Cola,59 cannot offset the 

negative health effects, including obesity and related chronic diseases, of drinking sugarsweetened beverages. 

78. While health authorities such as the federal government’s 2008 Physical Activity 

Guidelines encourage people to exercise, these same Guidelines acknowledge that “the 

contribution that physical activity makes to weight loss and weight stability is relatively small.”60

 

57 Candice Choi, Coca-Cola Teams up with Nutritionists to Push Coke as Healthy Treat, FOOD 

MANUFACTURING (Mar. 16, 2015), http://goo.gl/CnWLgA. 

58 Id. 59 See The Coca-Cola Co., Be OK, YOUTUBE (Jan. 16, 2013), https://goo.gl/l2e520 (video 

advertisement by Coke) (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

60 See, e.g., Guidelines, https://health.gov/paguidelines/report/G4_energy.aspx#q1c. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

21 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79. The tiny expenditures of exercise suggested in Coca-Cola ads pale in comparison 

to the quantity of exercise needed to redress excess calories from sugar-sweetened beverages. 

Furthermore studies find that even intensive exercise programs often fail to lead to expected 

weight loss.61 

80. As Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, told 

the annual meeting of the National Academy of Medicine in October 2016:

When crafting preventive strategies, government officials must recognize that the 

widespread occurrence of obesity and diabetes throughout a population is not a 

failure of individual willpower to resist fats and sweets or exercise more. It is a 

failure of political will to take on powerful economic operators, like the food and 

soda industries.62

81. Coca-Cola’s advertising campaigns, however, represent otherwise.

63 

82. For example, the “Be Ok” advertising campaign, which ran extensively in the 

United States, including during the popular television show American Idol and the Super Bowl, 

implied that light activities—always undertaken by trim and fit models, instead of overweight, 

 

61 See, e.g.,Timothy S. Church et al., Changes in Weight, Waist Circumference and Compensatory 

Responses with Different Doses of Exercise Among Sedentary, Overweight Postmenopausal Women, 4 PLOS ONE e4515 (2009) (increased food intake because of heightened hunger); Emily J. 

Dhurandhar et al., Predicting Adult Weight Change in the Real World, 39 INT’L J. OBESITY 

(LONDON) 1181 (2015) (metabolic compensation via slowing of basal rate); Edward L. Melanson et 

al., Resistance to Exercise-Induced Weight Loss: Compensatory Behavioral Adaptations, 45 MED.&

SCI. SPORTS & EXERCISE 1600 (2013) (compensatory behaviors like resting post exercise); Herman 

Pontzer et al., Constrained Total Energy Expenditure and Metabolic Adaptation to Physical Activity 

in Adult Humans, 26 CURRENT BIOLOGY 410 (2016) (energy expenditure ceiling); K. A. Shaw et al., 

Exercise for Overweight or Obesity, Cochrane Libr., Oct. 18, 2006 (meta-analysis of studies 

showing exercise does not equate with weight loss); D. M. Thomas et al., Why Do Individuals Not 

Lose More Weight from an Exercise Intervention at a Defined Dose? An Energy Balance Analysis, 13 OBESITY REV. 835 (2012) (overestimation of how much energy exercise burned versus calories 

taken in); Klaas R. Westerterp, Physical Activity and Physical Activity Induced Energy Expenditure 

in Humans: Measurement, Determinants, and Effects, 4 FRONTIERS PHYSIOLOGY 90 (2013) (exercise 

accounts for small portion of daily calorie burn (10-30%) whereas calories in accounts for 100% of 

energy intake of the body). 

62 Dr. Margaret Chan, Obesity and diabetes: the slow-motion disaster, KEYNOTE ADDRESS 47THMTG 

OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, HTTP://WWW.WHO.INT/DG/SPEECHES/2016/OBESITY- DIABETES-DISASTER/EN/. 

63 Tiffany Hsu, Coca-Cola Takes on Obesity Issue in Prime-Time Ad Campaign, L.A. TIMES (Jan. 

14, 2013), http://goo.gl/HMDF7F; Coca-Cola Ad Pushes Exercise, Soft Drink Moderation, AJC.COM

(Jan. 14, 2013); http://goo.gl/OOOP4m. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

22 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

obese or diabetic consumers—like laughing for 75 seconds, or doing a victory jig in the bowling 

alley, or 15 minutes of happy dancing—would offset the harmful health consequences of 

consuming sugar-sweetened beverages. See Illustrations 1–3.

Illustrations 1–3 

“A 12oz can of Coke = 140 calories. There are many ways to burn those calories 

through EXTRA physical activity and have fun while doing so. Balance your 

lifestyle. Be OK. Open happiness. Visit http://comingtogether.com.” 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

23 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

83. Coca-Cola’s claims are prolific that avoiding obesity and other bad health 

outcomes is substantially about “balance,” or “energy in and energy out.” 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

24 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

84. Coca-Cola has extensively promoted the claim that “[s]ugary drinks can be a part 

of any diet as long as your calories in balance with the calories out.64 

85. Likewise, the “Mixify” multi-platform advertising campaign, sponsored by CocaCola, the American Beverage Association, and other sugar-sweetened beverage producers, 

pitches kids on the notion that they should not be concerned about added sugar or calories. It 

encourages them to consume sugar-sweetened beverages and then exercise more.65 

Advertisements sponsored by Coca-Cola through the Mixify campaign advise kids, “Just 

finished an afternoon of Frisbee? Maybe you’ve earned a little more [soda].”66

86. Cola-Cola’s “Coming Together” advertising campaign promotes a related 

deception. It proclaims, “All calories count. No matter where they come from including CocaCola and everything else with calories.”67 This statement is misleading given the health 

consequences associated with drinking sugar-sweetened beverages, and their lack of nutritional 

value. 

87. As Professor Ruth Fagan, Wagley Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Director of 

the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, said of the Coming Together campaign, 

For Coca-Cola to suggest that all calories are equal flies in the face of 

reality. . . . Coca-Cola wants us to ignore the considerable research 

confirming that sugary soda is a major contributor to obesity, and that 

it has no nutritional value.68

88. The Coming Together campaign also flies in the face of the CDC’s conclusion 

that all calories are not equal because, among other things, “individuals may fail to compensate 

 

64 Coke Executive Answers Questions About Sugary Drinks, USA TODAY (June 7, 2012), 

http://goo.gl/z1SPqh (statement made by Coke executive Katie Bayne during interview). 

65 Find Your Mixify, MIXIFY, http://goo.gl/6U05e7 (last visited Sept. 15, 2016). 

66 MyMixify, MyMixify, YOUTUBE (Sept. 23, 2014), https://goo.gl/8azpWA (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

67 Isabela Carvalho Santos, Coming Together The Real Ad from Coca Cola, YOUTUBE (Oct. 25, 

2013), https://goo.gl/fZkvRO (video advertisement by Coke) (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

68 Ruth Faden, Coke’s Unconscionable New Ad, THE ATLANTIC (Jan. 25, 2013), 

http://goo.gl/eGYEgI. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

25 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for . . . calories consumed as liquid.”69 More, some calories have nutritional value, and others 

are neutral or adverse nutritionally; this distinction is the rationale for Dietary Guidelines. 

89. As part of Coca-Cola’s insistence on refocusing the sugar-sweetened beverage 

conversation around exercise and balance, in 2014, it spent $22 million on “physical activity” 

programs internationally,70 in which it also advertised its products.71 See Illustrations 4 & 5.72

 

69 CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL &PREVENTION,THE CDCGUIDE TO STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE 

CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES 4 (2010), http://goo.gl/OWgFs; accord Robin P. 

Bolton et al., The Role of Dietary Fiber in Satiety, Glucose, and Insulin: Studies with Fruit and Fruit 

Juice, 34 AM.J.CLINICAL NUTRITION 211 (1981); Diane M. DellaValle et al., Does the Consumption 

of Caloric and Non-Caloric Beverages with a Meal Affect Energy Intake?, 44 APPETITE 187 (2005); 

D. P. DiMeglio & R. D. Mattes, Liquid Versus Solid Carbohydrate: Effects on Food Intake and 

Body Weight, 24 INT’L J. OBESITY 794 (2000); G. B. Haber et al., Depletion and Disruption of 

Dietary Fibre: Effects on Satiety, Plasma-Glucose, and Serum-Insulin, 310 LANCET 679 (1977); 

Jessica N. Kuzma et al., No Difference in Ad Libitum Energy Intake in Healthy Men and Women 

Consuming Beverages Sweetened with Fructose, Glucose, or High-Fructose Corn Syrup: A 

Randomized Trial, 102 AM. J. CLINICAL NUTRITION 1373 (2015); R. D. Mattes, Beverages and 

Positive Energy Balance: The Menace Is the Medium, 30 INT’L J. OBESITY S60 (2006); D. M. 

Mourao et al., Effects of Food Form on Appetite and Energy Intake in Lean and Obese Young 

Adults, 31 INT’L J. OBESITY 1688 (2007); An Pan & Frank B. Hu, Effects of Carbohydrates on 

Satiety: Differences Between Liquid and Solid Food, 14 CURRENT OPINION CLINICAL NUTRITION &

METABOLIC CARE 385 (2011). 

70 THE COCA-COLA CO., 2014/2015 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 10 (2015), http://goo.gl/E4N5gM (last 

visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

71 Notably too, Coke’s extravagant spending belies Coke’s Forward Looking Statements, which 

clearly minimize the impact of “obesity concerns.” E.g., The Coca-Cola Co., Current Report (Form 

10-K), at 38 (Feb. 9, 2016). 

72 THE COCA-COLA CO., 2014/2015 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 8, 11 (2015), http://goo.gl/E4N5gM 

(last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

26 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Illustrations 4 & 5 

 

90. Beginning in May 2013, Coca-Cola introduced its “Get the Ball Rolling” program 

which hosted events it claimed were aimed at “bringing together happiness and movement in a 

way that only The Coca-Cola company can.”73 According to a story posted on the company’s 

website, the program’s activities “build on our Company’s global commitments to help fight 

obesity and be part of the solution,” and involved seeking partners “to help address obesity in 

every community we serve.” 74 In its first year of operation, the company co-hosted “Get the 

Ball Rolling” events (targeted at children) with organizations such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of 

America, National Foundation for Governors’ Fitness Councils, NASCAR, and many others.75 

Coca-Cola continues to fund and promote the program. 

 

73 Stuart Cronauge, Coca-Cola USA Sets Goal To Inspire Americans To Rediscover The Joy Of 

Activity, COCA-COLA (May 13, 2013), http://www.coca-colacompany.com/press-center/pressreleases/coca-cola-gets-the-ball-rolling-for-a-fun-active-summer. 

74 Id.

75 Caren Pasquale Seckler, How Has Coca-Cola Inspired More Than 3 Million People To “Get The 

Ball Rolling”? COCA-COLA (Sept. 23, 2013), http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-colaunbottled/how-has-coca-cola-inspired-more-than-3-million-people-to-get-the-ball-rolling. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

27 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91. Through the ABA, Coca-Cola also subsidized the 2016 Childhood Obesity 

Prevention Awards. These high-fanfare grants are given by the U.S. Conference of Mayors to 

six cities for their activity-focused nutrition programs.76 

92. In widely promoting these exercise programs, Coca-Cola proclaimed that “[w]ellbeing is integral part of our business—from the communities we serve to the people we refresh. 

Our well-being commitments serve as a guide for our global efforts . . . with an end goal to 

inspire happier, healthier lives.” 77 

93. Coca-Cola and the ABA also promoted a program called the “Balance Calories 

Initiatives,” which, according to a Coca-Cola press release, “encourages people to balance all of 

their calories – including beverages – with daily physical activity.”78 Susan K. Neely, President 

and CEO of the ABA emphasized the collaborative nature of the project, noting that the common 

goal of “health and wellbeing of communities across the country” overrides the normally 

competitive nature of commercial interests, joining all the members of the Association.79 

94. Coca-Cola paid nutritionists, too, to blog about balance and sugar-sweetened 

beverages as healthy snacks.80

 

76 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Six Cities Share $445,000 in Grants to Support Childhood 

Obesity Prevention Programs, PR NEWSWIRE (Jan. 21, 2016), https://goo.gl/X4IpQ7; Press 

Release, Am. Beverage Ass’n, Six Cities Share $445,000 in Grants to Support Childhood 

Obesity Prevention Programs (Jan. 21, 2016), https://goo.gl/nS7Tkb (last visited Sept. 15, 2016); 

see also Press Release, Coca-Cola Co., The Coca-Cola Foundation Awards $8.1 in Third Quarter 

Benefitting 3.8 Million People Worldwide (Oct. 18, 2013), https://goo.gl/SZRYkE (promoting 

Coca-Cola Foundation’s funding of foreign childhood obesity programs) (last visited Sept. 15, 

2016). 

77 THE COCA-COLA CO., 2014/2015 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 8 (2015), http://goo.gl/E4N5gM (last 

visited Sept. 16, 2016). 

78 Journey Staff, Coca-Cola Joins America's Beverage Companies and the Alliance for a 

Healthier Generation in Landmark Partnership to Promote Healthy Lifestyles, Coca-Cola (Sept. 

26, 2014), http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled-old/coca-cola-joinsamericas-beverage-companies-and-the-alliance-for-a-healthier-generation-in-landmarkpartnership-to-promote-healthy-lifestyles. 

79 Id.

80 Candice Choi, Coke as a Sensible Snack? Coca-Cola Works with Dieticians Who Suggest Cola 

As A Snack, STAR TRIBUNE (Mar. 16, 2015), https://goo.gl/2t44MM. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

28 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

95. For example, in her list of “sensible snacks for any time of day,” Robyn Flipse 

equated Coca-Cola mini-cans with packs of almonds.81 And in interviews, Dr. Rani Whitfield 

similarly promoted drinking Coca-Cola mini-cans as part of a healthy, balanced diet, 

commenting, “70 calories and my taste buds love it!”82 In addition to deceiving on nutrition, Ms. 

Flipse also missed on figures: Mini-cans of Coca-Cola have 90 calories.

96. To respond to the scientific consensus that sugar-sweetened beverages have no 

nutritional value, Coca-Cola made claims that its sugar-sweetened beverages aren’t “empty 

calories” but are sources of “essential hydration.” 

97. According to its Senior Vice President Katie Bayne, “What our drinks offer is 

hydration. That’s essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits whether it’s an 

uplift or carbohydrates or energy. We don’t believe in empty calories. We believe in 

hydration.”83

98. Coca-Cola’s [now-departed] Chief Science and Health Officer, Rhona 

Applebaum, routinely made similar claims like, “We started with one beverage that I personally 

am very proud of. It’s safe, it hydrates, it’s enjoyable.”84 

99. Even Coca-Cola’s website promotes the “science” of hydration with links to 

“Food Insight” publications—“Your Nutrition and Food Safety Resource”—produced by the 

International Food Information Council Foundation (“IFIC”). These publications stress the 

importance of hydration “whether you’re an elite athlete . . . or more the spectator type,” though 

 

81 Robyn Flipse, Every Day Heart Health in February and Beyond, NUTRITION COMMC’N SERVS. (Feb. 19, 2015), https://goo.gl/Pu5q5W (last visited Sept. 15, 2016). 82 Get Well Wednesday: Dr. Rani Whitfield Answers Your Questions About Prioritizing Health, 

BlackAmericaWeb.com, https://goo.gl/oAouCD (last visited Sept. 15, 2016) (transcript of radio 

interview). Coca-Cola reported paying health professionals and scientific experts a total of $2.3 

million for “travel grants, related expenses and professional fees” between 2010 and 2015. List 

of Health Professionals and Scientific Experts, THE COCA-COLA CO. (Mar. 24, 2016), 

https://goo.gl/VRU3BW (last visited Sept. 15, 2016). 

83 Coke Executive Answers Questions About Sugary Drinks, USA TODAY (June 7, 2012), 

http://goo.gl/OWgFs (statement made by Coke executive Katie Bayne during interview). 

84 Canadian Obesity-Network, COS2013 Symposia - Coca Cola - Dr. Rhona Applebaum, YOUTUBE

(May 29, 2013), https://goo.gl/I1SK6M (comments made by Dr. Rhona Applebaum, 

during presentation at Canadian Obesity Network’s 2013 symposia) (17:55) (last visited Sept. 15, 

2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

29 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

almost no Americans are under-hydrated. More, IFIC emphasizes that with respect to hydration, 

“the term ‘water’ can mean more than just plain drinking water. . . . It includes . . . beverages 

such as soft drinks . . . .”85 

100. Coca-Cola financially supports the IFIC, but this is not indicated in IFIC 

publications.86

101. The reasonable implication of this Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola-sponsored message 

is that the “essential hydration,” as offered by sugar-sweetened beverages, is good for the body. 

102. More than half of the US population drinks soda on a daily basis.87 More than 

half of the world’s population has had a Coke.88 But untold millions are unaware of the health 

consequences of frequent consumption of a product billed as “essential hydration.” 

103. In fact, scientific consensus is that frequent hydration by way of sugar-sweetened 

beverages is linked to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic diseases. 

These beverages are not “essential,” or even advisable, for the human body; they are antithetical

to well-being of the body if consumed routinely. 

C. Advertising to Minors 

104. Despite a pledge not to do so,89 Coca-Cola continues to target children with its 

advertising for sugar-sweetened beverages. 

105. Advertising messages for sugar-sweetened beverages are all-pervasive, appearing 

on billboards, buses, trains, magazines, newspapers, twitter, BUZZFEED, etc. 

106. The goal of Coca Cola’s advertising is to convey to young people that sugarsweetened beverages are desirable, safe, healthy and prevalent in society. 

 

85 INT’L FOOD INFO. COUNCIL FOUND., HYDRATION: DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE WATER?, at 1 

(2011), https://goo.gl/95XDlB (last visited Sept. 15, 2016).

86 See, e.g., id.

87 Willett Report, supra note 8, at ¶ 8. 

88 Muhtar Kent, A Letter from Our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, THE COCA-COLA CO. (May 4, 2015), http://goo.gl/yzdOHj. 

89 Responsible Marketing, THE COCA-COLA CO. (Sept. 25, 2015), https://goo.gl/pPZfr (last 

visited Sept. 15, 2016). 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

30 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

107. Despite its pledge not to do so, Coca-Cola continues to target children with a 

material segment of its advertising. Like the tobacco industry, Coca Cola needs to replenish the 

ranks of its customers, and it tries to recruit them young. 

108. To attract young consumers to their sugar-sweetened beverages, for example, 

Coca Cola has used cartoons, celebrities, over 300 apps, billboards at sponsored events, and 

otherwise has massively disseminated other consumer products branded with Coca-Cola. The 

advertising has been effective in attracting children and adolescents. 

III. PLAINTIFF HAS EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE RESOURCES COMBATTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ABOUT SUGARSWEETENED BEVERAGES THAT IT COULD AND WOULD HAVE 

ALLOCATED ELSEWHERE. 

109. Aware of the momentous health consequences of sugar-sweetened beverage 

consumption—that is, their link to the rising epidemics of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and 

cardiovascular disease—Plaintiff has been forced to expend substantial resources attempting to 

educate the public and policy-makers about sugar-sweetened beverages, including the inaccuracy 

of Defendants’ messages on the science of sugar-sweetened beverages, the need for enhanced 

regulation and transparency, and reduction in consumption. 

110. Aware that consumers purchase Coca-Cola sugar-sweetened beverages believing 

them to be part of a healthy diet, not linked to obesity, and/or good sources of hydration, and the 

like, relying on Defendants’ deceptive representations, and that consumers would not have 

purchased them had they known the truth, Plaintiff has been forced to expend substantial 

resources attempting to educate the public and policy-makers about sugar-sweetened beverages, 

including the inaccuracy of Defendants’ messages on the science of sugar-sweetened beverages, 

and the need for reduction in consumption and marketing transparency. 

111. Plaintiff has allocated significant resources to support advocacy about sugarsweetened beverages, including through its major initiative on obesity prevention for children 

aged 0-5. In addition to providing educational materials, this initiative includes frequent 

keynotes and speeches by Plaintiff’s staff, including its Executive Director, and participation in 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

31 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

material conferences addressing the determinants of obesity, including SSBs, and rebutting 

information disseminated by Coca-Cola and the ABA. 

112. Plaintiff also serves on the national advisory committee for Voices for Healthy 

Kids, and on the Advisory Board for Open Truth, which seeks to increase awareness of the 

negative impacts of sugar-sweetened beverages on health and seeks to expose non-transparent 

and manipulative marketing techniques by Defendants. Its Executive Director, Xavier Morales, 

serves on the Berkeley Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Commission, which makes investment 

recommendations for the Berkeley City Council relating to programs that aim, in key part, to 

educate the public about the risks of routine consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. 

113. Plaintiff has allocated substantial resources to cover the cost of its advocacy, 

including for meetings with policy makers in various local and state regulatory bodies. 

114. The funding that Plaintiff expends on its sugar-sweetened-beverage advocacy 

efforts requires it to divert resources away from other important public health and nutrition 

initiatives. 

115. Each of these resource-intensive activities was untaken prior to and independent 

of this litigation, and not in furtherance of it. 

116. If Plaintiff prevails in this litigation, it will no longer need to divert its resources 

to combat the false and misleading representations and tactics employed by Defendants about 

sugar-sweetened beverages, and can allocate such resources to other health-based projects. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

FIRST CLAIM 

Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, 

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.

117. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in each of the 

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 

118. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (the “UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or 

fraudulent business act or practice.” Defendants have engaged in unlawful, unfair, and 

fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of the UCL. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

32 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

119. Defendant Coca-Cola has violated the unlawful prong of the UCL by virtue of its 

violations of the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), as described below. 

120. Defendants have violated the unfair prong of the UCL because the acts and 

practices set forth herein offend established public policy supporting truth in advertising to 

consumers. Defendants’ conduct is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and injurious 

to consumers. The harm that these acts and practices cause to consumers greatly outweighs any 

benefits associated with them. Defendants’ conduct also impairs competition within the 

beverage industry. 

121. Defendants have violated the fraudulent prong of the UCL because their material 

misrepresentations and omissions were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer and the true facts 

would be material to a reasonable consumer. 

122. As alleged herein, Defendants’ advertising and public relations campaigns create 

the false impression that there is no link between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and 

obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or other related conditions, that sugar-sweetened 

beverages are a healthy component of any diet when “balanced” with some activity, and that 

drinking beverages to hydrate is “essential” to human health and that sugar-sweetened beverages 

are a good source of hydration. 

123. Defendants have represented to the consumer public, and to those who advance 

and protect their health, that they were disclosing objective, unbiased scientific facts about the 

health consequences of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages when they were not. 

124. Defendants have made and continue to make representations and statements about 

the safety of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effect on human health. These representations 

and statements have been materially false, incomplete, and fraudulent at the time Defendants 

made them, and Defendants knew or had reason to know of their falsity. 

125. At all relevant times, Defendants intentionally, willfully, or recklessly 

misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts about the health consequences of regularly 

consuming sugar-sweetened beverages, including their link to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and 

cardiovascular disease. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

33 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

126. Defendants’ knowledge of the material facts about sugar-sweetened beverages 

was and is superior to that of the consumer public. 

127. By expressly raising the issue of sugar-sweetened beverage safety and denying 

any link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular 

disease, and in addition making false statements about this issue, Defendants had a duty to reveal 

all the material facts of which they had notice, in order not to deceive and mislead the consumer 

public. 

128. Defendants’ disclosure of fragmentary information and half-truths and 

suppression of relevant facts constitutes actionable misrepresentation under the UCL. 

129. Defendants undertook such misrepresentations in order to induce the consumer 

public to purchase and continue to purchase sugar-sweetened beverage products and raise profits. 

130. By virtue of their affirmative misconduct, Defendants had a duty to disclose that 

the scientific consensus is that: a) sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to obesity, type 2 

diabetes, and cardiovascular disease; b) activity does not “balance” away, or negate, the link 

between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity-related chronic diseases; and c) hydration with 

sugar-sweetened beverages is not healthful or “essential” to the human body. They also had a 

duty to disclose all other material facts about the potential health hazards of sugar-sweetened 

beverage consumption of which they had notice. 

131. Defendants’ omissions are material because reasonable consumers would consider 

the omitted science linking sugar-sweetened beverages to chronic disease to be important in 

determining whether or not to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages. 

132. Reasonable consumers were likely to be deceived, and were in fact misled, by 

Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions. Reasonable consumers relied on Defendants’ 

actions. 

133. Coca-Cola knows or reasonably should have known that the promotion, 

marketing and sale of its sugar-sweetened beverages was and is deceptive. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

34 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

134. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’ unlawful, unfair, 

and/or deceptive practices because Plaintiff has incurred costs and diverted resources educating 

the public and public servants about Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions. 

135. Moreover, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent 

misrepresentations and active concealment, the consumer public has suffered and will continue 

to suffer substantial injuries. 

136. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues to occur, in 

the business of selling sugar-sweetened beverages. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is part of a 

general practice that is still being perpetuated and repeated throughout the State of California and 

nationally. 

137. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be 

necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair and deceptive business practices, 

and to provide such other relief as set forth below. 

SECOND CLAIM 

Violations of the California False Advertising Law, 

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500, et seq.

138. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs alleged herein. 

139. California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq. (the “FAL”), broadly 

proscribes deceptive advertising in this State. The FAL makes it unlawful for any corporation or 

association intending to sell products or to induce the public to make purchases to make any 

statement in connection therewith which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which 

by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading. 

140. When a corporation or association has a duty to disclose material facts about a 

product or about potential purchases of a product, representations to consumers without 

disclosure of such material facts violates the FAL. 

141. As alleged herein, Coca-Cola’s advertising and both Defendants’ promotion of 

sugar-sweetened beverages creates the impression that their consumption is not linked to obesity, 

type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, that it can be “balanced” with activity so as to be 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

35 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

healthful, and that it provides “essential” and healthful hydration. Defendants failed to disclose 

in their promotion and advertising campaigns that scientific consensus about sugar-sweetened 

beverages is to the contrary of each of these claims when they had a duty to make such 

disclosure. 

142. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions are material because reasonable 

consumers would consider the omitted facts to be important in determining whether or not to 

purchase sugar-sweetened beverages. 

143. Reasonable consumers were likely to be deceived, and were in fact misled, by 

Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions. 

144. Defendants know or reasonably should have known that statements they made in 

the promotion, marketing and sale of sugar-sweetened beverage products were and are deceptive. 

145. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, 

and/or deceptive practices because Plaintiff has been required to incur costs and divert resources 

educating the public and policy makers about the inadequacy and misleading nature of 

Defendants claims and material omissions about sugar-sweetened beverages. 

146. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues to occur, in 

the business of selling sugar-sweetened beverages. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is part of a 

general practice that is still being perpetuated and repeated. 

147. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be 

necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing their false advertising and other false statements, 

and provide such other relief as set forth below. 

THIRD CLAIM 

Intentional Breach of Special Duty 

148. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs alleged herein. 

149. Defendants assumed a special duty to protect the consumer public when they 

actively misrepresented that the wellbeing of consumers was an industry priority and that the 

science they presented was objective, reliable, and demonstrated no link between sugarsweetened beverages and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

36 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

150. Defendants also undertook a special duty by funding and organizing deceptive 

exercise-focused campaigns around California, the United States, and globally. 

151. Continuing to date, Defendants’ spokespersons have repeatedly announced that 

research is underway showing that sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and 

cardiovascular disease are not linked, and moreover that obesity is caused instead by lack of 

exercise and “balance.” These actions were and remain a part of Defendants’ campaign of 

disinformation designed to obscure the evidence that sugar-sweetened beverages are linked to 

obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

152. Defendants did not make these representations gratuitously, rather, they were 

made to combat the emerging scientific consensus about the consumption of sugar-sweetened 

beverages and, more specifically, to protect profits from the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages. 

153. Defendants also represented that the well-being of their consumers was one of 

their primary concerns. 

154. Further, Defendant Coca-Cola represented repeatedly that it does not advertise to 

children. 

155. Each of these undertakings was designed to, among other purposes, cause 

consumers to believe that they could continue to consume sugar-sweetened beverages on a 

routine and often daily basis healthfully. 

156. In making these representations, Defendants assumed duties to the public and 

Plaintiff. 

157. Defendants had a duty to disclose the whole truth about the link between sugarsweetened beverages and obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and, by extension, the 

truth about the science of “balance.” Defendants breached this duty. 

158. Defendants could have reasonably foreseen the risk of harm to Plaintiff and the 

public. Defendants knew and/or could foresee that their actions would result in continued 

substantial consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by the public and/or large portions 

thereof—especially children and less-educated populations and consumers. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

37 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

159. The very purpose behind the assumption of this duty was simultaneously to 

promote the purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, and to prevent or delay 

regulatory activities designed to curb such purchase and consumption. 

160. Defendants’ intentional breach of their assumed duties therefore influenced the 

conduct of Plaintiff to its detriment. 

161. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of Defendants’ intentional breach of 

their specially assumed duties, the public continued to consume sugar-sweetened beverages 

when they would not otherwise, and Plaintiff has been forced to expend and divert its resources 

to fight these trends and inform consumers of the truth. 

FOURTH CLAIM 

Negligent Breach of Special Duty

162. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs alleged herein. 

163. Defendants knew or should have known that the special duties that they assumed 

were important to consumer and to Plaintiff, and their failure to carry out these duties would 

substantially increase the risk of harm to Plaintiff. 

164. Defendants have breached and continue to breach their special duties, have failed 

to exercise reasonable care in the performance of their special duties, and this has substantially 

increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff. 

165. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent breach of their specially 

assumed duty of care, Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer substantial injuries for which 

it is entitled to recover. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment against 

Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff, as follows: 

A. Declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein to be 

unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive, and in violation of the Unfair Competition Law; 

B. Declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein to be a 

violation of the Fair Advertising Law; 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

38 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein to be a 

violation of their special duties; 

D. Enjoin Defendants from continuing the unfair and deceptive promotion, 

marketing and sale of sugar-sweetened beverages, including any claim that sugar-sweetened 

beverages are not linked to obesity, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease; 

E. Enjoin Defendant Coca-Cola from continuing the promotion, marketing and sale 

of its sugar-sweetened beverages to children under 12, directly or indirectly; 

F. Require Defendants to disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously 

conducted, directly or indirectly, through agents, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and all 

persons acting in concert with them, that relates to the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage 

consumption on health; 

G. Require Defendants to disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously 

conducted, directly or indirectly, through agents, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and all 

persons acting in concert with them, that relates to the impact of exercise on health and obesity, 

as contrasted with consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, or any other caloric intake; 

H. Require Defendants to fund a corrective public education campaign to reduce the 

consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages; 

I. Require Defendants to prominently post on their websites that the consumption of 

sugar-sweetened beverages can lead to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

J. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 

K. Award Plaintiff such other further and different relief as the nature of the case 

may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by this Court. 
AMENDED COMPLAINT

Praxis Project v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:17-cv-00016-JSC 

39 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all causes of action so triable. 

Date: January 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

REESE LLP 

 

 /s/ Michael R. Reese 

Michael R. Reese 

mreese@reesellp.com 

100 W. 93rd Street, 16th floor 

New York, New York 10025 

Telephone: (212) 643-0500 

Maia C. Kats 

mkats@cspinet.org

Matthew B. Simon 

msimon@cspinet.org 

Center for Science in the Public Interest 

 1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300 

 Washington, District of Columbia 20005 

 Telephone: (202) 777-8381 

Andrew Rainer 

arainer@phaionline.org

The Public Health Advocacy Institute 

360 Huntington Ave., Suite 117 CU 

Boston, Massachusetts 02115 

Telephone: (617) 373-2026 

 Counsel for Plaintiff The Praxis Project