Federal Court Allows False Advertising Claims to Proceed Against Tropicana
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging false and misleading advertising for defendant’s “Tropicana Pure 100% Juice Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices from Concentrate with other Natural Flavors.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 09-6130 (C.D. Cal., decided February 1, 2010). Plaintiffs allege that the product label, which emphasizes the pomegranate and blueberry components of the product by image and size of type constitutes false or misleading advertising in violation of several state statutes. According to the complaint, consumers are misled into believing the juice is primarily pomegranate and blueberry juice when it is, in fact, mostly pear juice.
Tropicana argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, her claims were expressly preempted by federal law, and they were not pleaded with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that because the plaintiff claimed she did not get what she paid for, she had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and thus had standing to bring her claims. The court also determined that federal law did not preempt the state law claims “[b]ecause Congress has also allowed states, at the very least, to pass statutes identical to [federal law].” According to the court, if the Food and Drug Administration can sue for false or misleading labels, then a private party equipped with a private right of action under state law can sue to enforce an identical state statute. The court further concluded that the plaintiff’s fraud claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity.
