Opinion ID: 199109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims of Literal Falsity

Text: 38 Clorox challenged two features of Proctor & Gamble's advertising campaign as literally false. First, Clorox alleged that the television commercials that aired in the original and modified campaign claimed that Ace gets clothes as white or whiter than chlorine bleach. According to Clorox, that claim is literally false because tests prove that chlorine bleach whitens better than detergent used alone. Second, Clorox alleged that the name, Ace con Blanqueador, is literally false with respect to Ace liquid detergent because it falsely suggests that Ace liquid contains whitener or bleach. 39
40 Whether an advertisement is literally false is typically an issue of fact. See Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 209 F.3d 1032, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000) (denying petition for rehearing and amending prior panel opinion). At least two factual questions must be answered in evaluating the accuracy of any particular advertisement. First, a factfinder must determine the claim conveyed by the advertisement. See United Indus. Corp., 140 F.3d at 1181 (applying clearly erroneous standard to review of district court's factual determination regarding the claim conveyed by an advertisement for roach bait); Johnson & Johnson v. GAC Int'l, Inc., 862 F.2d 975, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Once the claim made by the advertisement has been determined, the factfinder must then evaluate whether that claim is false. See Castrol, 987 F.2d at 944. 41 In the case at hand, the parties focus their attention solely upon the first of these factual determinations. The complaint asserts that in head-to-head whitening tests, Clorox achieved by far, superior results to Ace. Clorox also emphasizes that Ace's own boxes state that in certain cases, for better results, the consumers must use chlorine bleach. In reviewing the motion to dismiss, we therefore assume as true that chlorine bleach whitens better than Ace and that a contrary claim would be literally false. The primary dispute between the parties is not which product whitens better, 8 but rather whether any of Proctor & Gamble's advertisements make a claim of whitening superiority over chlorine bleach. 42 Although factfinders usually base literal falsity determinations upon the explicit claims made by an advertisement, they may also consider any claims the advertisement conveys by necessary implication. See Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1139; Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129. A claim is conveyed by necessary implication when, considering the advertisement in its entirety, the audience would recognize the claim as readily as if it had been explicitly stated. For instance, a factfinder found that an advertisement that claimed a motor oil provided longer engine life and better engine protection without explicitly mentioning competitors nonetheless drew a comparison by necessary implication vis aa vis those competitors. See Castrol, 987 F.2d at 941, 946. This is not to say, however, that all messages implied by an advertisement will support a finding of literal falsity by a factfinder: 43 The greater the degree to which a message relies upon the viewer or consumer to integrate its components and draw the apparent conclusion, however, the less likely it is that a finding of literal falsity will be supported. Commercial claims that are implicit, attenuated, or merely suggestive usually cannot fairly be characterized as literally false. 44 United Indus. Corp., 140 F.3d at 1181. Similarly, a factfinder might conclude that the message conveyed by a particular advertisement remains so balanced between several plausible meanings that the claim made by the advertisement is too uncertain to serve as the basis of a literal falsity claim, though even in that case it could still form the basis for a claim that the advertisement is misleading. See id. at 1182; Abbott Labs., 971 F.2d at 14. 45 In reviewing the dismissal in the present case, however, we are not required to determine what claim was actually conveyed by the advertisements because we are not factfinders. Instead, we must evaluate whether the complaint, as supplemented by the advertising copy, alleges facts that would allow a rational factfinder to conclude that Proctor & Gamble's advertisements make a superiority claim either explicitly or by necessary implication. We must draw all reasonable inferences as to the claim made in the advertisements in favor of Clorox. See Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1139; see also Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129; U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Blue Cross, 898 F.2d 914, 922 (3d Cir. 1990). Dismissal would only be proper if no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the advertisements, viewed in the light most favorable to Clorox, make a claim of whitening superiority for Proctor & Gamble's product. 46 We conclude that Clorox has stated a claim that Proctor & Gamble's original Doorstep Challenge commercials are literally false. These commercials juxtapose a tag line, Whiter is not possible, with images of consumers who normally used bleach to achieve white clothes and who are favorably impressed by the results obtained from using Ace alone. The overall theme of the commercials is that bleach is unnecessary if clothes are washed with Ace, and, in fact, many of the consumers visited by Zamora are congratulated at the end of the commercials for passing the Ace whiteness challenge without chlorine. Some of the commercials also suggest that eliminating chlorine from the laundry process will save consumers time or money, or curtail the negative side effects of washing clothes with chlorine. A factfinder could reasonably conclude that, viewed in their entirety, these advertisements claim that Ace is equal or superior in whitening ability to a detergent and bleach combination. 47 The modified Doorstep Challenge campaign continued the same visual comparisons, as well as the congratulatory comments for passing the Ace whiteness challenge without chlorine, but added the words Compare your detergent to the Whiter is not possible tag line shown at the bottom of the screen at the end of the commercials. Although this change may render the comparative claim of the advertisements more ambiguous, we nonetheless conclude that it remains reasonable to interpret these advertisements as making by necessary implication a superiority claim for Ace over chlorine bleach. Consequently, the court erred in dismissing Clorox's literal falsity claims with respect to both Doorstep Challenge campaigns. 48
49 Clorox also alleged that the name, Ace con Blanqueador, as applied to liquid Ace, is literally false. According to Clorox, the word blanqueador implies that liquid Ace has whitening capabilities like bleach. Clorox alleged that this is literally false because in its liquid form Ace does not contain bleach or whitening agents. Instead, it contains only a color enhancer. Clorox emphasizes that liquid Ace uses the same formula as Tide with Bleach Alternative whose name, unlike blanqueador, clearly signifies the absence of bleach. Proctor & Gamble responds that blanqueador means whitener, and that the name cannot be literally false because tests show that the agents added to liquid Ace produce greater whiteness than detergents without those agents. 50 Clorox's allegations about the use of the name Ace con Blanqueador for the liquid detergent state a claim for literal falsity. Although blanqueador, meaning whitener, is broad enough to encompass both bleach and non-bleach whitening agents, the question remains whether liquid Ace is properly described as containing whitening agents of any sort. Clorox has alleged that it is not, insisting that Ace's ingredients are properly termed color enhancers. Although the distinction between a whitening agent and a color enhancer eludes us, we must credit that allegation in this appeal from a 12(b)(6) dismissal. If Clorox succeeds in proving that liquid Ace contains only an enhancer, rather than a whitener, and if it further establishes the other elements of a false advertising claim, see supra note 6, it will be entitled to relief under the Lanham Act because Proctor & Gamble's designation of Ace liquid detergent as Ace con Blanqueador would be literally false.