{
  "id": "R43670",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43670",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 450911,
      "date": "2014-07-28",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:56:40.944742",
      "title": "Juice Labeling and Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola: A Legal Overview",
      "summary": "This report discusses two different federal statutes that regulate beverage labels. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its implementing regulations outline requirements for beverage labels reflecting the different ingredients of the juice. The FDCA also prohibits misbranded food and beverages when labels are false and misleading. The Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute that regulates unfair competition, also prohibits misleading labels and advertisements that may hurt a competitor\u2019s business and/or goodwill. While these two statutes both impact juice labels, the overall purpose and enforcement of these two statutes differ. Only the federal government can enforce the FDCA, while the Lanham Act allows competitors to enforce the act\u2019s principles in the courts. The Lanham Act prohibits unfair competition, while the FDCA seeks to ensure public health and safety. These similarities and differences raise questions regarding the legal options for businesses claiming harm from a misleading or misbranded beverage label, such as the negative impact on the market for their products. Such questions include whether a business can seek relief against a competitor\u2019s misleading juice label in court. \nThe courts and parties in Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola encountered this issue, specifically regarding Coca-Cola\u2019s allegedly misleading juice label. In 2008, Pom brought suit against Coca-Cola alleging that Coca-Cola\u2019s Pomegranate Blueberry beverage name and label violates the Lanham Act and California\u2019s unfair competition laws because it misleads consumers to believe that the beverage consists of primarily pomegranate and blueberry juices when it actually contains mostly apple and grape juices. The district court in California and the Ninth Circuit held that the FDCA precludes Pom\u2019s Lanham Act claim because of the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s (FDA\u2019s) exclusive authority to regulate food labels and the absence of any FDA action against Coca-Cola for this label. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Pom may bring a Lanham Act claim alleging unfair competition from misleading beverage labels regulated by the FDCA because of the absence of anything in the text, legislative history, or structure of the FDCA or the Lanham Act that shows congressional intent to preclude such Lanham Act claims.\nThe two legal issues before the courts in Pom Wonderful focused on the interaction of federal statutes with both state and federal laws. On remand, the lower courts will have to consider again the issues of preemption, specifically whether the FDCA preempts Pom\u2019s California state law claims when the state law provisions are not identical to the federal law. Additionally, the Supreme Court\u2019s preclusion analysis in Pom Wonderful adds to the case history addressing the preclusion of Lanham Act claims by the FDCA. However, as consumers appear increasingly concerned about how food products are labeled, further litigation may be needed to clarify how the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Pom Wonderful applies to Lanham Act food and beverage claims that are dissimilar to Pom\u2019s Lanham Act claim. Similarly, it is unclear how Pom Wonderful may apply to other FDA-regulated products such as drugs and cosmetics. Despite the possibility for further litigation, Pom Wonderful provides a useful opportunity to observe and understand the interplay between two federal statutes that can be applied to the wider federal regulatory context.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43670",
          "sha1": "1b4c6bc4d68714915244ab8f1fbb8d00f2b19c79",
          "filename": "files/20140728_R43670_1b4c6bc4d68714915244ab8f1fbb8d00f2b19c79.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43670",
          "sha1": "db6e165fba74920374262e20e9d897389d81c338",
          "filename": "files/20140728_R43670_db6e165fba74920374262e20e9d897389d81c338.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}