A flurry of lawsuits this year by parties demanding compensation from the likes of Coke and Pepsi after their products allegedly failed to live up to the marketing.
It is way past due to expunge this kind of nonsense from the legal system – and dump the environmentalists’ BS while we’re about it. If this klutz can’t reasonably be expected to tell the difference between a piece of fruit and a processed drink then it’s doubtful he’s competent to be allowed out unsupervised.
IT says Simply Orange on the label, but Coca-Cola’s juice drink is the subject of legal action by an angry shopper for not being orangey enough.
And it is but merely one target in a flurry of lawsuits this year by parties demanding compensation from the likes of Coke and Pepsi after their products allegedly failed to live up to the marketing.
The Simply Orange suit, for example, alleges that the claim the juice is “a pure natural orange juice” is false.
The lawsuit, filed by Randall Davis from Chicago, argues the juice cannot be pure because it is “extensively manipulated” to extend its shelf life. The action is seeking other plaintiffs so it can become a class action, which would increase the scale of damages being sought.
Lawyers not connected with the case said it had become common in the US for plaintiffs to use a literal interpretation of a marketing slogan to seek damages in a class-action lawsuit.
A spokesman for Coke said: “This lawsuit has nothing to do with misleading consumers and everything to do with lining class action lawyers’ pockets. It is a meritless case against which we will vigorously defend ourselves.”
The legal action bears an uncanny resemblance to one filed by Angelena Lewis from California against PepsiCo’s Tropicana brand in January. Much of the phraseology is identical. Drinks industry insiders said copycat lawsuits often appeared in different parts of the country.
Meanwhile, Chris Shake, of Brooklyn, has filed an action against Frito-Lay and its Tostitos and SunChips brands.
Mr Shake’s lawsuit, which has attracted two other plaintiffs since it was filed in January, alleges Frito-Lay’s claim that its snacks are “made from all natural ingredients” is false, as the crisps are made from genetically modified corn. “The reasonable consumer assumes that genetically modified organisms are not all natural. Thus Tostitos’s and SunChips’s advertising is deceptive to consumers.”
The lawsuit argues Mr Shake has been damaged – to an extent to be determined at trial – because he did not get the all-natural snack he had been expecting.
Peter Huang, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said: “Companies have a decision to make in these cases. Do they fight and risk a volatile jury finding against them, which would set a precedent for other claims, or do they settle? In many cases for big corporations it is easier to settle, even if there is little merit to the case.”
The Australian
