Opinion ID: 199109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims of Misleading Advertising

Text: 51 In addition to its claims of literal falsity, Clorox has alleged in its complaint that the Ace advertising campaign, even if true or ambiguous, makes an implied claim that is misleading to consumers. This second theory of recovery under the Lanham Act is independent of a literal falsity theory. See, e.g., Coca-Cola, Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 690 F.2d 312, 317 (2d Cir. 1982). Unlike the requirements of a claim of literal falsity, the plaintiff alleging a misleading advertisement has the burden of proving that a substantial portion of the audience for that advertisement was actually misled. See Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 19 F.3d at 134 (citing U.S. Healthcare v. Blue Cross, 898 F.2d 914, 922 (3d Cir. 1990)). An advertisement's propensity to deceive the viewing public is most often proven by consumer survey data. See id. at 129-30. 9 Clorox appended to the amended complaint a consumer survey prepared by David Whitehouse of Gaither International/Puerto Rico, Inc. 10 The survey consisted of a series of open-ended questions followed by several follow-up probes. In reliance on the survey, the complaint alleges that: 52 In open-ended questions, 35% of respondents of its scientifically valid survey responded that the main message of the Doorstep Challenge Campaign was that, with ACE, there is no need to use other products for maximum whitening performance. In addition, when the respondents were asked if 'the Detergent in the Ad (ACE) Leaves Clothes as White or Whiter than If One Uses Bleach,' 47% totally agreed and 20% somewhat agreed with that statement. Plainly, the Doorstep Challenge Campaign has been amply shown to be likely to cause consumer deception. 53 Clorox has also alleged in its complaint that in its promotional activities and advertisements, Proctor & Gamble deceiv[ed] and confus[ed] the public, causing consumers to wrongly believe they are buying a detergent that possesses the same qualities and characteristics as a detergent used with CLOROX. 54 The court was required to credit Clorox's allegations. It could not conduct its own evaluation of the advertising copy because whether advertising is misleading depends on what message was actually conveyed to the viewing audience. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 960 F.2d at 298; see also Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, 19 F.3d at 129. In deciding whether a message is misleading, the message conveyed is discerned by public reaction, not by judicial evaluation. McCarthy § 27:56; see also Castrol, 987 F.2d at 947 ([I]n cases where the issue is whether a statement . . . has a tendency to mislead, confuse, or deceive . . . [,] the court's reaction is at best not determinative and at worst irrelevant.) (internal quotation marks omitted). That is, absent some other defect in its proof of the elements of a false advertising claim, see supra note 6, if Clorox's consumer survey data (or Proctor & Gamble's own market research data) shows that the advertisements deceive[d] a substantial portion of the intended audience, U.S. Healthcare, 898 F.2d at 922, Clorox is entitled to relief under the Lanham Act. 11 Hence, the claims asserting misleading advertising were improperly dismissed. 12 55 Proctor & Gamble offers one last defense of the court's ruling, pointing to Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 201 F.3d 883, modified by, 209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000) as a case that stands for the proposition that a consumer survey could not be used to show that an advertisement that is clear and unequivocal on its face otherwise conveyed a misleading message. According to Proctor & Gamble, its tag line in the modified campaign clearly and unequivocally does not compare Ace with Clorox and, therefore, Mead Johnson prevents Clorox from using a survey to prove that a comparison was made. We need not decide whether we would agree with Mead Johnson in a factually similar case. This case is of a different order. 56 Mead Johnson addressed whether a label was misleading in claiming its product to be the 1st Choice of Doctors. See 201 F.3d at 883-84. The plaintiff argued that its surveys demonstrated that consumers interpreted first to mean that more than 50% of doctors preferred that brand rather than interpreting first to mean that a plurality of doctors preferred the brand. See id. at 884-85. These distinctions were important because, though the latter interpretation of the label was true, the former was false. See id. at 884. 57 After first finding the plaintiff's survey misleading if not meaningless, the court identified a deeper problem: the use of a survey in the first place. Id. at 885. Although agreeing that surveys are accepted ways to probe for things such as confusion about the source of goods, for confusion depends on the effect of a phrase or trade dress on the consumer, the court reasoned that surveys should not be used to determine the meaning of words, or to set the standard to which objectively verifiable claims must be held. Id. at 886. Based upon these objections, the court held that the survey could not support a conclusion . . . that [the message conveyed by the advertisement] either was false or implied a falsehood. Mead Johnson, 209 F.3d at 1034. 58 Procedurally, Mead Johnson is different than this case. That court's evaluation of the merits of the survey was based on a record established during a three day hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was granted. See Mead Johnson, 201 F.3d at 884. As noted, see supra note 12, it would not be appropriate to undertake a similar analysis of the Clorox survey on the limited record subject to review after a 12(b)(6) dismissal. 59 Also, the advertising slogan in Mead Johnson was a single phrase printed on the label of a can of infant formula. Proctor & Gamble points us to a similar phrase in its advertising, the tag line Compare with your detergent . . . Whiter is not possible, as though the two slogans were comparable. Proctor & Gamble's tag line, however, is an integral part of a television commercial with substantial text and images. There is a fundamental difference between a slogan on a can label that communicates its meaning to consumers solely through the printed text, and a tag line shown on the screen at the end of a television commercial that communicates its message to consumers through a combination of audio-visual and textual media. Because we decline to read Proctor & Gamble's tag line separately from the entirety of the commercials, Mead Johnson is factually inapplicable to the present case.