In LaCroix's False Branding Lawsuit, Risk Management Lessons for Corporate Law
From coordinating with other departments to keeping language simple, legal experts share tips for mitigating, if not preventing, the chances of facing a lawsuit stemming from product labeling.
October 12, 2018 at 01:26 PM
4 minute read
It's become a cult favorite, but now LaCroix flavored sparkling water has become something else: the subject of a class action lawsuit.
Chicago firm Beaumont Costales recently announced that it has sued LaCroix's parent company, National Beverage Corp., in Cook County for allegedly falsely branding its product's ingredients as “natural” when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has classified them as “synthetic.”
Despite the relative commonality of these types of suits in recent years, the story garnered significant news coverage, likely because of the popularity of the product. And it probably didn't hurt that Beaumont Costales said one of the synthetic ingredients in LaCroix products is also used in cockroach insecticide, a tidbit that made for catchy headlines.
In a report published a few days after the original news—and covered by several news outlets—Popular Science magazine deemed the water “safe,” but LaCroix still felt the reputational damage, asking its consumers in a tweet to “please stand with us as we defend our beloved LaCroix.” National Beverage also chastised what it called a “false” and “defamatory” lawsuit over which it would “seek actual and punitive damages.”
Part of the problem, consumer product labeling legal experts said, is that the law around the issue is murky, and the FDA is still working to develop a clear objective standard for what is “natural.”
Corporate Counsel spoke with some of these experts to understand how legal departments can mitigate, if not prevent, the chances of facing a lawsuit stemming from product labeling.
|Coordinate With Other Departments
Whether your advertising legal work is handled in-house or outsourced, advertising copy of any sort must be discussed among the marketing, research and development, and in-house legal departments before it is run in any medium, said Larry Weinstein, a litigation partner and co-head of the false advertising and trademark group at Proskauer Rose.
“It is way too often the case that there is no [eyes], or no adequate second pair of eyes on advertising because issue-spotting really is the key,” he said. “The bottom line is that for anything you tell the consuming public, you need make sure that it's accurate.”
If the label includes the term “natural,” Weinstein added, conversations between lawyers, R&D and marketing representatives should be occurring, and all the parties should be asking, “'What are the ingredients? Is there an issue about whether any of them can be described as natural?'”
|Consider All Potential Plaintiffs
Litigation over consumer product labeling can come in several forms—from a competitor suing under the federal Lanham Act or a consumer class-action suit brought under state law, Weinstein said. In addition, he said, companies may turn to the National Advertising Division, an industry self-regulatory body, for dispute resolution, and the Federal Trade Commission also could opt to get involved.
The required burden of proof, the expense and the entire process are very different depending on the forum, so in-house lawyers should carefully consider who might bring a challenge and what the risks and costs of defending it are, Weinstein said.
“They have to ask, 'What is the likelihood and where? What are the costs?'” he said. “Maybe the benefit of this particular advertising claim would be well outweighed by the cost of defending a lawsuit.”
|Keep It Simple
Raqiyyah Pippins, counsel at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, advises her clients that the simpler the product or ingredient label, the better. In fact, she has a general suggestion: Try to avoid ingredients that are more than three syllables.
“Ideally, the ingredient names should be in terms that are facially commonly understood,” she said.
With regard to use of the term “natural,” Pippins also recommends using the standard adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a benchmark, which is a relatively narrow definition, even for non-agricultural products.
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 AllKing Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Kraft Heinz Hires GC of Industrial Manufacturer as Legal Chief
CLO of Yum Brands Exiting After 17 Years With Fast-Food Giant
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
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