Source: https://www.stinson.com/Resources/Articles/2018_Articles/Canada_Dry_Ginger_Ale_s_Marketing_Campaign_Fizzles_In_Labeling_Litigation.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:51:29+00:00

Document:
Often, a marketing strategy can lead to unwanted consequences, including litigation. For example, one company decorated its fruit juice snacks with images of fruits, which led consumers to believe the fruit snacks contained actual fruit.1 In another case, a cracker manufacturer stated its product was “Made With Real Vegetables” and placed images of vegetables on the carton, even though it contained none of those depicted vegetables.2 These are just a handful of examples that have led to expensive and time-consuming litigation.
Now, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., the maker of Canada Dry Ginger Ale, faces multiple lawsuits because of a marketing campaign that claimed that Canada Dry Ginger Ale was “Made from Real Ginger.” One television commercial pictured a ginger farm and showed a worker harvesting ginger, but “[w]hen he pulls up one of the plants by its stalk, he finds a bottle of Canada Dry Ginger Ale where the ginger root would normally be.”3 The same ad then stated that Canada Dry was “the root of relaxation.”4 According to various lawsuits, many consumers believed that Canada Dry contained real ginger root,5 but, after a detailed laboratory analysis these consumers learned that Canada Dry contained no discernable amounts of ginger.6 Instead, Canada Dry Ginger Ale contained a ginger derivative called ginger oleoresin.7 Because Canada Dry aggressively marketed its product as made with real ginger, it now faces uncertain legal liability.
Food and beverage manufacturers can learn important lessons from Canada Dry’s marketing campaign, including to avoid specific non-factual claims on which consumers could rely, and to confirm that a product’s label conforms to the Nutritional Labeling Education Act (“NLEA”).
Food and beverage manufacturers should recognize the line between generalized opinion and specific non-factual claims and take steps to minimize the amount of actionable puffery. These steps should include scrutinizing the content of the ad, including imagery and statements. Indeed, the question should be asked: would a reasonable consumer rely on these statements and believe them to be true, when they are not?
To date, the Flavor Regulation has not provided a bright line for dismissal of consumer complaints, but Courts appear to be open to the use of the Flavor Regulation as a defense in consumer labeling litigation. It would behoove all food and beverage manufacturers to comply with the NLEA, both for its outright preemptive protections and for those potentially afforded by the Flavoring Regulation.
The food and beverage marketplace is a contentious arena, and many businesses use aggressive marketing tactics to distinguish their products. However, consumers are likely to turn to litigation when those marketing claims stretch beyond opinion to non-factual statements that the products do not meet. Food and beverage manufacturers should scrutinize their marketing practices to minimize the risk of litigation.
Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008).
Red v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-cv-00564, 2017 WL 4224723, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2017).
Webb v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 4:17-00624-CV-RK, 2018 WL 1955422, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 25, 2018).
Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-cv-00564, 2018 WL 3126385, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018).
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1061 (9th ed. 2010).
Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Chacanaca, 752 F. Supp. 2d at 1126.
See Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 273 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also In re Ferrero Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1116 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that court could not dismiss claims on the basis of puffery because food label made specific statements, as opposed to generalized or vague statements).
Fitzhenry, 2017 WL 4224723, at *7.
Id. at *8; see also 21 C.F.R. § 101.22.
Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 961 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
Sciortino v. Pepsico, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 780, 790 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Red, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1143; see also 21 C.F.R. 101.22 (i) (discussing standards for a characterizing flavor).
Red, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1143.
Fitzhenry, 2017 WL 4224723, at *9.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v.