Coca Cola truck. (Photo: Sergio TB/Shutterstock.com)

The Coca-Cola Co. faces several certified classes in a long-running lawsuit accusing the company of misleading consumers about whether its flagship soft drink contains artificial flavors or preservatives.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California on Feb. 14 partially granted class certification in the multidistrict litigation, which dates back to 2014, finding that the lawsuit presents common questions about how the company uses phosphoric acid. Plaintiffs claim phosphoric acid is both an artificial flavor and preservative—an assertion that the company contests—and that they were misled by Coca-Cola labels claiming "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886."

"The issue of how phosphoric acid is used in Coke is a question that must be answered to resolve each of the statutory claims for relief, and the court concludes that question would have 'the capacity … to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation,'" White wrote in a Feb. 14 order certifying separate classes to pursue statutory claims under California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Florida laws.

White, however, denied the plaintiffs' request for class certification to pursue common law claims, which carried potential damages.

"Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any damages awarded on these common law claims would be 'incidental' to the injunctive relief they seek, i.e. 'damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief. '" wrote White, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Dukes v. Walmart.

Lead plaintiffs counsel in the case, Keith Fleischman of Fleischman Bonner & Rocco in New York and John "Don" Barrett of Barrett Law Group in Lexington, Mississippi, weren't immediately available Monday. Coca-Cola has been represented in the case by counsel at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Patterson Belknap's Steven Zalesin didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

The Feb. 14 ruling leaves pending a central question in the case: whether Coca-Cola's statement that its product had "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added" was "material" to the purchasing decision of a "reasonable consumer."

"It is evident that Coca-Cola believes it will prevail on the issue of materiality when the court addresses the merits of plaintiffs' claims," White wrote in last week's order. "For purposes of class certification, however, the court concludes plaintiffs have met their burden to show a fact-finder would be able to answer the question of whether the statements are material to a reasonable consumer on a class-wide basis."

Read more:

Diet Dr Pepper Doesn't Mislead Consumers, Appeals Court Says

Coppertone Makers Hit With Class Action Over 'Mineral-Based' Sunscreen Label

Too Cute? Appeals Court Nixes Claim Over 'No Sugar Added' Label on Cuties Juice

Correction: An earlier version of the story mistakenly said the Barrett Law Group is based in Lexington, Massachusetts. It is based in Lexington, Mississippi.