Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A juice giant’s latest attempt to put the squeeze on a Mott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ class action lawsuit came up short, with a federal judge deciding only to toss roughly half of the claims made by the plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff argues that the company violated the Sherman Act, a California statute that allows citizens to sue on violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Specifically, he points to a regulation that requires companies to include a warning that the product is not “low calorie” or “calorie reduced” if they use the no sugar added claim.
However, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston did not allow the request for injunctive relief noting that “whatever his prior state of knowledge, Rahman is now fully aware that ‘No Sugar Added’ simply means that no sugar was added to a product, not that the product does not contain sugar or is a good beverage for a type-2 diabetic to drink.” So regardless of his future buying choices, he would still know that there were potential issues.
The other major issue was the “reasonable consumer” standard that affects the California state law claims via the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and parts of the Unfair Competition Law. Judge Illston noted that while reliance mattered, i.e. that Rahman actually purchased Mott’s apple juice due to the phrasing of “no sugar added,” he is also required to provide evidence that a reasonable consumer would face a similar problem.
While the defense team produced expert testimony that many people would not have the issue, the plaintiff did not. Instead, the expert witness arguing in favor of maintaining the entire class action lawsuit only estimated a large number of people would have an issue with the label, rather than actually performing a survey.
However, those problems did not undermine Rahman’s claim seeking damages under the unlawful prong of the Unfair Competition Law, as opposed to the fraud and unfair prongs. In addition, he will also be able to seek damages for breach of quasi-contract.
This is the third time that the company has tried to knock down the Mott’s apple juice class action lawsuit. The first time, Judge Illston maintained the mislabeling claim but allowed for Rahman to amend the complaint. In the second, Illston requested more evidence for the UCL, CLRA and FAL claims that she dismissed in the most recent ruling.
The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie, David L Cheng, Sue J Kim, Sharon G. Yaacobi and Arvin Ratanavongse of Capstone Law APC.
The Mott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Lawsuit is Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, Case No. 3:13-cv-03482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
UPDATE: On Dec. 3, 2014, a federal judge denied certification for the Mott’s “no sugar added” class action lawsuit based on concerns regarding the calculation of damages.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
3 thoughts onMott’s ‘No Sugar Added’ Class Action Survives Squeeze
Add me
Add me
UPDATE: On Dec. 3, 2014, a federal judge denied certification for the Mott’s “no sugar added” class action lawsuit based on concerns regarding the calculation of damages.