Plaintiffs Try to Revive Juicy Juice False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

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.

Plaintiffs Try to Revive Juicy Juice False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

By Kimberly Mirando

Plaintiffs on Tuesday appealed the dismissal of two consolidated class action lawsuits accusing Nestle USA Inc. of falsely advertising that its Juicy Juice fruit drinks would promote immunity health and brain development in young children, telling the Ninth Circuit their allegations were sufficient to move past the pleading stage.

A federal judge dismissed the Juicy Juice class action lawsuits in May 2011, ruling the plaintiffs failed to clearly state claims under California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws.

Consumers sued Nestle in 2009 and 2010 alleging ads for Juicy Juice Brain Development and Juicy Juice Immunity deceived consumers into believing the products would provide the advertised health benefits even though they contained a “typical amount” of vitamin C and “minute quantities” of DHA (fish oil), zinc and prebiotic fiber.

Nestle promoted Juicy Juice as superior to other juices, thereby inducing consumers into paying more for the beverages over other comparable products, plaintiffs alleged.

Plaintiff attorney Joseph Guglielmo told the three-judge appeals panel that a single servicing of Juicy Juice Brain Development contains only 16 milligrams of DHA. Guglielmo said the average one-year-old would need to consume 12.5 servings of the juice to obtain any benefit, adding, “That’s a lot of juice.”

Nestle’s attorney argued that a “reasonable consumer” would not conclude a single serving of the juice would promote brain development.

Guglielmo disagreed.

“The consumer is likely to believe … that by consuming this juice, this product is going to promote cognitive development,” he argued. “They named the product ‘Brain Development.’ It’s not ‘Juicy Juice with DHA.’”

No decision on whether to revive the cases has been made.

The Juicy Juice False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit case is Chavez v. Nestle USA Inc., Case No. 11-56066, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo and Christopher M. Burke of Scott & Scott LLP.

Updated February 14th, 2013

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions