Cuties (Courtesy photo)

A California appellate court found that a reasonable person would not jump to the same conclusions as a plaintiff who alleged a tangerine juice-maker fraudulently branded its product as "No Sugar Added," implying that all other competing juices do contain added sugar and are less healthy.

California's Second District Court of Appeal Thursday affirmed the dismissal of the case against plant-based food producer Califia Farms, defended by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton's Sascha Henry in Los Angeles.

Plaintiff Michelle Shaeffer, who said she bought the juice because her children enjoy tangerines and because she's diabetic, asserted that the company's Cuties Juice label is "likely to deceive reasonable consumers in its implications" in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the state's false advertising law.

Second District Associate Justice Brian Hoffstadt wrote that, "because a reasonable consumer is not likely to engage in these inferential leaps, we conclude that the 'No Sugar Added' label on Cuties Juice is not actionable as a matter of law."

Administrative Presiding Justice Elwood Lui and Associate Justice Victoria Chavez concurred with the decision.

Schaeffer, represented by Capstone Law's Ryan Wu and Robert Friedl in Los Angeles, brought the suit on behalf of a proposed class of consumers who also considered the "No Sugar Added" qualifier deceptive. Her lawyers argued that the Superior Court of Los Angeles County wrongfully sustained Califia's demurrer in the case and improperly denied her leave to amend.

In affirming the demurrer, the appellate court decided that truthful statements about a product that do not mention competing products cannot be actionable as a matter of law.

"An example vividly makes our point: Assume that a new airline runs an ad with a tagline, 'No Hijackers Allowed.' Is a reasonable consumer likely to infer that other airlines do allow hijackers and that the new airline is consequently the safer choice? We think the answer to this question is 'no.'"

The Second District also ruled that the state court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schaeffer's leave to amend.

"Plaintiff proffered no specific amendments to the trial court. She proffers none to this court beyond her blithe remark that 'there could well be ways that any defect in the present pleading could be corrected,' Hoffstadt wrote. "This is plainly insufficient to carry her burden'."

The case is one of several misleading labeling suits to hit California appellate dockets this year. On Dec. 23., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal of a lawsuit claiming Diet Coke falsely implied that drinking it would help consumers slim down, and a week later ruled that Diet Dr Pepper was similarly not at fault for consumers' health misconceptions of the product.