Jennifer Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated
953 F.3d 969
7th Cir.2020Background
- Fruit of the Earth manufactures aloe vera gel (sold under its brand and as private‑label products); the contested bottles are 98% aloe gel and 2% stabilizers/preservatives.
- Plaintiffs originally alleged the products contained no aloe or acemannan; discovery proved the products do contain aloe and measurable acemannan.
- Plaintiffs revised their theory: the products allegedly contain too little acemannan (a purportedly active polysaccharide) to warrant the “aloe vera gel” / “100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel” labels or claimed therapeutic uses.
- Discovery produced acemannan measurements (e.g., plaintiffs’ expert measured ~45–65 mg/L versus his expectation of 200–500 mg/L in undiluted aloe), but no evidence showing what concentration is required for efficacy or that consumers care about acemannan levels.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of evidence that labels would likely mislead reasonable consumers; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calling the product “aloe vera gel” is deceptive given low acemannan | Low acemannan means product is not truly "aloe" or is inferior; label misleads | Products are made from aloe and contain acemannan; no evidence consumers care about acemannan concentration | No — plaintiffs offered no evidence consumers are misled or that a minimum acemannan is required to call it aloe |
| Whether labels are misleading for promising therapeutic benefits when acemannan is low | Low acemannan renders product ineffective for stated uses | Plaintiffs bear burden to prove falsity/inefficacy; no evidence product is ineffective | No — plaintiffs failed to prove lack of efficacy or that defendants must disprove efficacy |
| Whether “100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel” is deceptive or ambiguous despite ingredient list | “100% Pure” implies purity/quality and excludes non‑aloe additives | Ingredients list discloses stabilizers/preservatives; plaintiffs conceded small amounts acceptable | No — plaintiffs presented no evidence consumers interpreted phrase as excluding disclosed stabilizers, and they conceded they expected small additives |
| Whether summary judgment was premature during class‑certification phase | Plaintiffs argued merits evidence can wait for class issues | Defendants argued burden at summary judgment remains; plaintiffs offered no Rule 56(d) request | No — plaintiffs failed to produce necessary evidence or seek additional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (survey evidence can show reasonable‑consumer deception and defeat summary judgment)
- Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311 (7th Cir. 1992) (misleading claims may be obvious from the face of the advertising but materiality often requires evidence)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (ingredient disclosure does not automatically cure a misleading front‑label claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and the requirement to show genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (party opposing summary judgment must present evidence beyond pleadings)
- Schering‑Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 586 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2009) (some misrepresentations may be obviously misleading such that extrinsic evidence is unnecessary)