Diet Dr Pepper Doesn't Mislead Consumers, Appeals Court Says
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the word "diet" in Diet Dr Pepper did not dupe consumers into believing they could lose weight by drinking the beverage.
December 30, 2019 at 02:20 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
That New Year's resolution to lose weight might not include Diet Dr Pepper—at least, according to a federal appeals court that affirmed dismissal of a case challenging the soda's health claims.
In an opinion Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the word "diet" in Diet Dr Pepper did not mislead consumers into believing they could lose weight.
"Diet soft drinks are common in the marketplace and the prevalent understanding of the term in that context is that the 'diet' version of a soft drink has fewer calories than its 'regular' counterpart," wrote Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Just because some consumers may unreasonably interpret the term differently does not render the use of 'diet' in a soda's brand name false or deceptive."
San Diego plaintiffs attorney Jack Fitzgerald, of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, did not return a call for comment.
Baker Botts partners Evan Young, in Austin, Texas, Van Beckwith in Dallas, and Jonathan Patchen in San Francisco, represented Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. The Texas-based company did not respond to a request for comment.
The ruling is the latest in a class action challenging the health claims of diet soda. Fitzgerald brought cases in California and New York, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found this year that that "diet," in the context of Diet Coke, did not mean weight loss but, instead, fewer calories. In previous summary orders, the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of two other New York cases this year involving Diet Dr Pepper and Diet Pepsi.
On Dec. 23, the Ninth Circuit also dismissed the appeal of another Fitzgerald case challenging Diet Coke, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the judge's order "shows no intent to dispose of the entire action."
In the Diet Dr Pepper case, Fitzgerald's client, Shana Becerra, had argued that the drink deceives consumers into believing they can lose weight, or at least not gain weight, when drinking the soda.
The Ninth Circuit, in its order, focused on Dr Pepper's argument that the plaintiff defined the word "diet" as a noun or verb, not as an adjective, as used in its product's name.
"When considering the term in its proper context, no reasonable consumer would assume that Diet Dr Pepper's use of the term 'diet' promises weight loss or management," Bybee wrote. "In context, the use of 'diet' in a soft drink's brand name is understood as a relative claim about the calorie content of that soft drink compared to the same brand's 'regular' (full-caloric) option."
The panel also dismissed allegations that Diet Dr Pepper's advertising alluded to weight loss with "the use of attractive, fit models."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 2Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 3FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
- 4'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
- 5Court rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250