Canada Dry Maker Can't Shake 'Made From Real Ginger' Suit
A federal judge in San Jose mostly turned back a request from Plano, Texas-based Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. to toss the California class action finding consumers could plausibly claim they expected Canada Dry to contain ginger root rather than a ginger derivative.
November 05, 2018 at 02:32 PM
3 minute read
The maker of Canada Dry Ginger Ale couldn't shake a lawsuit brought on behalf of California consumers who claim they were misled by labeling and advertising that said the drink was “made from real ginger.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the Northern District of California on Nov. 2 partially turned back a summary judgment motion from Plano, Texas-based Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. finding that consumers could plausibly claim that they were misled to believe that Canada Dry contains ginger root when it actually contains a ginger derivative, ginger oleoresin.
Although Cousins found that the beverage was “literally made in part 'from' real ginger” since ginger oleoresin is derived from ginger root, he noted that the defendant's own expert survey suggested that between 11.54 to 40.59 percent of consumers believe that “real ginger” tagline might imply that Canada Dry is made using ginger root itself.
“In short, plaintiffs have shown there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the 'Made from Real Ginger' label misleadingly implies that Canada Dry is made with ginger root,” Cousins wrote.
The judge, likewise, sided with plaintiffs by allowing their claims that the Canada Dry's “real ginger” branding misleads consumers about the health benefits of the beverage, of which there are none. In waiving on those claims, Cousins cited internal documents from the company that found that 30 percent of consumers who increased their Canada Dry consumption did so because of the perceived health benefits.
“Simply put, it would be odd for the court to conclude that Dr. Pepper's advertisements do not affect consumer expectations regarding Canada Dry, when Dr. Pepper itself believes that it had,” Cousins wrote.
Cousins' ruling is the second recent win in the case for lead plaintiffs counsel at Gutride Safier and the Margarian Law Firm. In June Cousins certified a class of all California consumers who had purchased a Canada Dry product dating back to Dec. 28, 2012.
Gutride Safier's Adam Gutride didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Cousins, however, on Nov. 2 did grant Dr Pepper's motion for summary judgment on claims that the company misled consumers about the amount of ginger in Canada Dry. Cousins noted that the plaintiffs hadn't pointed to any evidence showing how much ginger consumers expected to be in the beverage and defense survey data that showed consumers exposed to the “real ginger” advertising were skeptical about the amount of ginger in Canada Dry.
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group is represented by counsel at Baker Botts. Van Beckwith, the Dallas-based chair of the firm's litigation department, said in an email that his client was pleased that the court had entered summary judgment on its behalf on some claims. He also said they were pleased that the court “struck one of plaintiffs' experts entirely and limited the scope of the opinions that may be offered by two other experts” in a related order Friday.
|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 AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tom Girardi's Lawyers Want Next Month's Sentencing Delayed
- 2About the Awards: Florida Legal Awards 2025 Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Katie Hall
- 3Trump Nominates Ex-SEC Chief Jay Clayton to Helm Southern District of New York US Attorney's Office
- 4Steward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
- 5'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
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