Opinion ID: 1977391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Purpose to prevent consumer deception.

Text: Prevention of consumer confusion and deception is the reasonable basis advanced by the attorney general in support of the law. He argues that, since Crandall's has been serving Coffee-Rich directly mixed with coffee or in unlabeled pitchers for seven years, consumers have been misled into thinking they were getting real cream or some derivative thereof. Instead of coffee with cream as they presumably requested, they received a blend of water, vegetable fat, corn syrup solids, vegetable protein, polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, polysorbate 60, dipotassium phosphate, disodium phosphate, carrageenan, and beta-carotene. The attorney general argues that the legislature could reasonably believe that this factual situation exists, and that it forms a reasonable basis upon which the legislature could act. Thus, the attorney general asserts that the purpose of the legislation was not to protect the state's dairy industry, but to prevent fraud and deception in the sale and service of coffee with cream in restaurants. In a line of cases this court has consistently concluded that the legislature could constitutionally enact legislation with such a purpose of preventing fraud and deception in the sale of products. Nearly fifty years ago, in Day-Bergwall Co. v. State, [3] this court recognized that consumers might be confused by the sale of an imitation vanilla product, and that the legislature could act upon the factual basis to protect the public from fraud. A few years earlier, in Hebe Co. v. Shaw, [4] the United States Supreme Court found that the circumstances of sale of evaporated milk created a risk of fraudulent substitution for whole milk, and that this danger was a sufficient factual basis for an outright prohibition on the sale of evaporated milk. In 1944, the supreme court also decided, in Carolene Products Co. v. United States, [5] that the likelihood of confusion, deception, and substitution in the sale of filled milk products was enough to sustain constitutionality of the federal Filled Milk Act. Although these cases are from an earlier era, there is today an even greater concern for protection of consumer rights, which reasonably includes the right to be served what one expects in a public restaurant. This concern has been reflected in more recent cases involving the deceptive sale of new foods closely resembling other foods. For example, in Aeration Processes, Inc. v. Commissioner of Public Health , [6] the Massachusetts Supreme Court was faced with a product called Instantblend, which was a nondairy creamer similar to Coffee-Rich. In that case the court found that there was a substantial risk of consumer mistake and deception in the sale of a product so similar to cream. This danger was even greater in light of the fact that Instantblend was being served at restaurants and other public eating establishments. The court conceded that the intent of the manufacturer of this product might have been to make an entirely new product, but pointed out that this was not inconsistent with the intent to make that new product resemble cream, and that this innovative intent, however laudable, was irrelevant to the question of whether there was confusion and mistake among consumers. The court concluded that a total prohibition upon the sale of Instantblend did not constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of due process. In Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Public Health, [7] the Massachusetts Supreme Court had before it a similar case involving the sale of Coffee-Rich. The holding of that case was that a total prohibition in the sale of Coffee-Rich was constitutionally unjustified because the evidence showed that most of the sales were made from the frozen foods sections of supermarkets, and thus there was less risk of consumer mistake and deception than there might be in other circumstances. Aeration Processes, with its reasoning about a higher risk of deception in restaurant sales, was not overruled, as plaintiffs suggest. On the contrary, the court found that Coffee-Rich was indistinguishable from cream in coffee. and that the danger of consumer confusion was present, although it was not substantial in the context of supermarket sales. Plaintiffs argue that there is no factual basis to support this law because the secretary of agriculture has never received a consumer complaint about service of Coffee-Rich in restaurants. Yet consumers can hardly be said to be aware of the deception given the fact that Coffee-Rich is indistinguishable from cream when mixed with coffee, and the fact that it is frequently so mixed out of the sight of the consumer. Even if restaurant patrons were aware of the substitution, this is hardly a matter which would provoke them to complain to the proper authorities. It is rather the cumulative effect of this deceptive substitution which may be said to have triggered the action of the legislature. We conclude that the basic purpose of preventing deception is an underlying and constitutional purpose of the legislation. The trial court brushed aside this claim that prevention of deception was the purpose of the legislation. Instead, it examined the legislative history of sec. 97.48 (4), Stats., and found therein a clear intent to ban Coffee-Rich because it was a nondairy product, and its continued sale presumably threatened the dairy industry of this state. In doing so, the trial court below relied upon John F. Jelke Co. v. Emery, [8] where it was said that this court will look to the real and not merely the professed intent of the legislature, and will relieve parties from oppressive laws, where the real purpose is not protection of the public welfare. In that case, however, the claim that prevention of deception was the aim was a sham, because uncolored oleo did not resemble dairy butter at all. Also, the state frankly conceded that promotion of the state dairy industry was one of the real ends of the legislation. In the instant case, on the other hand, deception is likely because Coffee-Rich is indistinguishable from cream when mixed with coffee, and the attorney general vigorously denies any legislative intent to aid the local dairy industry. As for the legislative history of this law, we find nothing therein which contradicts an intent to prevent deception. The original bill introduced on February 22, 1971, was Assembly Bill 340, and it banned all sale or service of nondairy whiteners in restaurants. Assembly Amendment I, introduced on April 20, 1971, is thoroughly consistent with a purpose to prevent deception, and contrary to an intent to suppress competition, because it allowed dispensation of nondairy whiteners in all vending machines bearing a prominent legend stating that the whitener dispensed therefrom was not a dairy product. Senate Amendment I, introduced on July 15, 1971, would have allowed sale and service of nondairy whiteners to customers who specifically requested them, but this amendment was defeated. Yet the defeat of this amendment indicates only that the legislature rejected an opportunity to employ a narrower means of achieving its end of preventing deception. The trial court believed that the legislature had no purpose of preventing deception in mind when it passed sec. 97.48 (4), Stats. This legislative history does not support that belief. The legislature did intend to prevent deception in the sale of nondairy products.