Geffner v. The Coca-Cola Company
928 F.3d 198
2d Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Geffner & Babsin) filed a putative class action alleging Diet Coke’s name and marketing misled consumers into believing it would promote weight loss or at least not cause weight gain.
- Plaintiffs pointed to advertising (fit models; phrases like “will not go to your waist”), statements that Diet Coke is suitable for "carbohydrate and calorie‑reduced diets," and studies they say link aspartame to weight gain.
- The District Court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly allege misleading statements or causal link from aspartame to weight gain.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and focused on whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the term “diet” and Coca‑Cola’s marketing.
- The court concluded (1) “diet” in a soft‑drink title denotes low or reduced caloric content (not a general weight‑loss promise), and (2) “diet” is primarily relative (lower calories than the non‑diet counterpart), so Plaintiffs’ core theory fails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of the label “diet” on a soft drink | “Diet” implies the product will assist weight loss or not cause weight gain | “Diet” denotes low/reduced calories, not a promise of weight loss | “Diet” refers specifically to caloric content, not a general weight‑loss promise |
| Relative vs. absolute meaning of “diet” | “Diet” conveys an absolute effect (e.g., akin to drinking water; prevents weight gain) | “Diet” is relative—means lower calories than the non‑diet version | “Diet” carries a primarily relative meaning (lower in calories than regular version) |
| Advertising imagery and slogans (fit models; “will not go to your waist”) | Such marketing reinforces a weight‑loss/weight‑management promise | These are vague/puffery or factually accurate statements about suitability for reduced‑calorie diets | Images are non‑specific puffery; “will not go to your waist” is puffery; suitability statements are not contradicted by Plaintiffs’ admissions |
| Scientific causation (aspartame causes weight gain) | Cited studies show aspartame likely causes weight gain, undermining “diet” label | Plaintiffs’ studies do not establish a causal link sufficient to render the label misleading | Plaintiffs failed to plead plausible causal facts; cited studies do not support the alleged misrepresentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Caro v. Weintraub, 618 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (requirement of materially misleading conduct for GBL §§ 349/350 claims)
- Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173 (N.Y. 2011) (elements of negligent misrepresentation under New York law)
- Premium Mortg. Corp. v. Equifax, Inc., 583 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2009) (misrepresentation element for fraud claims)
- Cohen v. Koenig, 25 F.3d 1168 (2d Cir. 1994) (advertising puffery doctrine)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (importance of context in reasonable‑consumer analysis)