Original Creator: Nick Papadis
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.