False advertising on food labels
POM Wonderful v. The Coca-Cola
In brief
POM won the right to pursue its false-advertising claim, but the Court did not decide whether Coca-Cola’s label was misleading.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-0 · June 12, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Kennedy
- What it’s about
- POM Wonderful sued Coca-Cola, claiming its juice label was misleading; the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal food-labeling rules barred POM’s false-advertising claim.
- Who it affects
- Competitors may bring federal false-advertising claims challenging food and drink labels regulated by federal law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), deciding that competitors may bring claims under the federal false-advertising law (Lanham Act) about food and drink labels regulated by federal law.
Federal law regulates food and drink labels and also bars false advertising, raising a question about whether both laws can apply to the same label.
Question presented
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals err when it held that FDA regulations barred Pom Wonderful's claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act?
What the Court decided
Holding
Competitors may bring Lanham Act claims like POM’s challenging food and beverage labels regulated by the FDCA. 679 F. 3d 1170, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said judges should read the federal laws together. It did not treat FDA rules for food labels as automatically blocking claims under the false-advertising law.
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the lower court for further proceedings.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Opinion
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.