Eastman Chemical Company v. PlastiPure, Incorporat, 775 F.3d 230

Background

Eastman manufactures Tritan and faced consumer concerns about BPA and EA, motivating testing and marketing to assure Tritan is EA-free.
PlastiPure and CertiChem marketed EA-free claims and distributed a brochure asserting Tritan has significant EA.
Eastman sued for false advertising under the Lanham Act and related claims; district court entered judgment and issued an injunction against promotional materials and statements.
Trial evidence showed multiple labs found no EA in Tritan; Eastman’s experts testified EA-free, while Appellants offered competing, arguably reliable tests.
The district court enjoined statements that Tritan leaches EA, or is dangerous due to EA, or that EA persists after stresses, while allowing future modification if new evidence changes facts.
On appeal, Appellants argued statements were scientific opinions, the verdict lacked legally sufficient evidence, and there were instructional/verdct-form errors; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether promotional statements about Tritan’s EA are actionable facts	Eastman argues statements are false advertising facts, not mere opinions.	PlastiPure/CertiChem contend statements are scientific opinions within open debate.	Lanham Act can reach false promotional claims, not protected as opinions.
Whether the evidence supports falsity of Tritan’s EA	Eastman presented multiple studies showing no EA in Tritan; jury could credit that.	Appellants offered evidence supporting EA detection and reliability of their tests.	Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Tritan lacked EA and that Appellants’ claims were misleading.
Whether the jury instructions and verdict form were correct	Eastman asserts instructions properly directed falsity and misleadingness with permissible theories.	Appellants challenge amalgamated statement and false-by-implication instruction, among others.	Any instructional errors were harmless; findings of falsity and misleadingness supported the injunction.
Whether the injunction itself was proper given the record	Eastman contends injunction is appropriate to prevent deceptive marketing of Tritan.	Appellants argue overbreadth and First Amendment concerns on scientific debate.	Injunction properly enforces Lanham Act against false commercial speech; not a ban on scientific discourse.
Whether ONY v. Cornerstone is controlling	Eastman distinguishes case as involving scholarly article, not consumer advertising.	Appellants cite ONY to argue scientific debate should be protected.	ONY is distinguishable; the present context involves advertising to consumers, not academic discourse.

Key Cases Cited

Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes statements of fact from opinions for Lanham Act purposes)
Presidio Enters., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Distrib. Corp., 784 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1986) (fact vs. opinion; empirical verification standard)
Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (statements must be specific and measurable to be factual)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1983) (commercial speech has lower protection than noncommercial speech)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (U.S. 1985) (commercial speech regulatory framework acknowledged)
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (establishes framework for commercial speech regulation)
Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993) (enjoins misleading performance claims)
Church & Dwight Co. v. Clorox Co., 840 F. Supp. 2d 717 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (false testing claims enjoined when unsupported)
McNeil-P.C.C., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 938 F.2d 1544 (2d Cir. 1991) (scientific superiority claims enjoined when unsupported)
Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1996) (commercial speech context and misrepresentation considerations)