POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co. by Michael Cherry
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Similar to Case 3 involving L’Oreal, this case also deals with deceptive advertising in dealing with juices. In 2014, POM Wonderful sued competitor Coca-Cola over an advertisement that was seen by them as deceptive to the consumer, and thus caused for a loss in sales of the POM Wonderful drink. The Coca-Cola product, under the sub-brand Minute Maid, claimed that the juice drink it was selling was a five juice blend. This was deceptive, as claimed by POM Wonderful, because the label on the container had the words pomegranate and blueberry much more prominently and boldly displayed than the other juices present, primarily apple and grape. This is an issue because it could be deceiving to a customer thinking they are getting a juice that is primarily pomegranate and blueberry, when it is actually a majority of the much cheaper apple and grape juices. There was only 0.3 and 0.2 percent of pomegranate and blueberry juice, respectfully, in the overall blend, while 99.4% was a the apple and grape. POM Wonderful sued for damages over a loss of revenue due to customers choosing this cheaper drink compared to their own pomegranate blend because they thought they were getting the same thing at a cheaper price, when in reality they were not. The Supreme Court ruled that the libel was deceiving and misleading and needed to be changed. The major impact of this case though was deciding whether or not one federal statute does not preclude another or not, and the court ruled that it does not. This became particularly complex when debate over the definition and interpretation of the Lanham Act, which talks about the preclusion of statutes, came into question. This is where the majority of the debate took place and where most of the time was spent with clarification.
EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION
DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:
MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)-
1 Show/Hide More Primary Sources in Pom v. Coke Original Creator: Nick Papadis
-
1.1 Show/Hide More Cornell Law Summary of Pom v. Coke Overall summary of the case with more thorough text throughout -
1.2 Show/Hide More ABA Explaination of the Case and the Lanham Act Explanation about the Lanham Act and how this case has resulted in amending and clarifying of the act -
1.3 Show/Hide More Example ad in Pom v. Coke Example of the advertisement in question -
1.4 Show/Hide More Oral Argument of the Pom v. Coke case Oral argument of Supreme Court case
-
-
2 Show/Hide More Relavent Articles in POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co. Original Creator: Nick Papadis
-
2.1 Show/Hide More “Pom Wins in the Supreme Court. Now it's Pom v. Coke, Round 2” A Bloomberg expert provides analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Pom v. Coke case. -
2.2 Show/Hide More NPR Discusses POM Wonderful Case Analysis of case that talks about more could come after this proceeding
-
Close
Playlist Information
April 25, 2016
Author Stats
Nick Papadis
American University
Other Playlists by Nick Papadis
| Find Items |
Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. Thank you.