FTC issues final ruling against POM Wonderful
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) doesnt think POM Wonderful is so wonderful.
January 17, 2013 at 05:31 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) doesn't think POM Wonderful is so wonderful.
Yesterday, the regulatory agency upheld a judge's earlier decision against POM Wonderful, finding that the pomegranate juice maker's advertisements mislead consumers about its products' health benefits.
The FTC filed a complaint against POM and its parent company, Roll International Corp., in September 2010. In May 2011, a judge found that the company used deceptive advertising when it claimed its juice could treat or prevent certain illnesses. POM asked the FTC to overturn the ruling, but yesterday, the commission voted unanimously against the company's appeal request and issued a final order barring POM from claiming its juice is “effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease, including heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.”
POM plans to appeal the ruling. “This order ignores what $35 million of peer-reviewed scientific research, centuries of traditional medicine and plain common sense have taught us: antioxidant-rich pomegranate products are good for you,” POM said in a statement.
The FTC's decision could affect other food and beverage makers because of its requirement that POM's claims be backed by two randomized, controlled clinical trials—the same type of proof the Food and Drug Administration requires from pharmaceutical companies seeking approval for new drugs.
Read Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal more about the FTC's decision against POM.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) doesn't think POM Wonderful is so wonderful.
Yesterday, the regulatory agency upheld a judge's earlier decision against POM Wonderful, finding that the pomegranate juice maker's advertisements mislead consumers about its products' health benefits.
The FTC filed a complaint against POM and its parent company, Roll International Corp., in September 2010. In May 2011, a judge found that the company used deceptive advertising when it claimed its juice could treat or prevent certain illnesses. POM asked the FTC to overturn the ruling, but yesterday, the commission voted unanimously against the company's appeal request and issued a final order barring POM from claiming its juice is “effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease, including heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.”
POM plans to appeal the ruling. “This order ignores what $35 million of peer-reviewed scientific research, centuries of traditional medicine and plain common sense have taught us: antioxidant-rich pomegranate products are good for you,” POM said in a statement.
The FTC's decision could affect other food and beverage makers because of its requirement that POM's claims be backed by two randomized, controlled clinical trials—the same type of proof the Food and Drug Administration requires from pharmaceutical companies seeking approval for new drugs.
Read Bloomberg Businessweek and the Wall Street Journal more about the FTC's decision against POM.
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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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