POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.
134 S. Ct. 2228
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- POM Wonderful sells pomegranate and pomegranate‑blueberry juice products and sued Coca‑Cola under §43(a) of the Lanham Act, alleging Coca‑Cola’s Minute Maid label (prominently reading “pomegranate blueberry”) falsely implied the product was predominantly pomegranate/blueberry when it was ~99.4% apple & grape with 0.3% pomegranate and 0.2% blueberry.
- POM alleged the labeling deceived consumers and caused POM commercial injury (lost sales/reputation), seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Lanham Act.
- The FDCA and FDA regulations govern food and juice‑blend labeling and prohibit misbranding; FDA enforces FDCA and private parties cannot bring FDCA enforcement suits. FDA’s juice‑blend rule requires disclosure or labeling language when non‑predominant juices are named.
- District Court granted partial summary judgment for Coca‑Cola, concluding FDCA/FDA regulation precluded POM’s Lanham Act challenge; Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, deferring to FDA’s comprehensive regulation.
- Supreme Court considered whether the FDCA (and FDA regulations) preclude Lanham Act suits challenging food/beverage labels regulated by the FDCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FDCA or FDA regulations preclude Lanham Act claims challenging food/beverage labels | POM: No; statutes can be harmonized and both may operate; nothing in text or history shows FDCA displaces Lanham Act | Coca‑Cola: Yes; FDCA/FDA occupy the field for juice labeling and their specificity and federal enforcement show Congress intended exclusivity/uniformity | Reversed Ninth Circuit: FDCA does not preclude Lanham Act claims; competitors may sue under Lanham Act despite FDA regulation |
| Whether textual preclusion or implied repeal exists between FDCA and Lanham Act | POM: No implied repeal; both statutes should be given effect unless irreconcilable | Coca‑Cola: FDCA is the more specific law and should narrow or displace Lanham Act remedies for regulated labels | Court: No textual basis for preclusion; absence of express preclusion over 70 years is strong evidence against implied repeal |
| Whether FDCA’s state‑law preemption implies federal preclusion of Lanham Act | POM: FDCA’s express state preemption suggests Congress did not intend to displace other federal remedies | Coca‑Cola: Preemption provision supports national uniformity argument against private suits | Court: FDCA preemption language applies to state law only; it does not support barring federal Lanham Act claims |
| Whether agency regulations can, by themselves, block private federal causes of action | POM: Agency rules do not have authority to cancel a separate federal private remedy absent clear congressional authorization | Government (amicus): Where FDA specifically requires or authorizes a labeling practice, Lanham claims should be precluded to that extent | Court: Agency after‑the‑fact statements cannot nullify statutory private rights; regulations that do not clearly displace federal remedies cannot be read to preclude Lanham Act suits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (1906) (syllabus disclaimer on opinions)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against preemption and analysis of federal/ state law interaction)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) (Lanham Act scope beyond trademarks)
- J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi‑Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001) (complementary statutes with different requirements can both be effective)
- Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001) (statutory interpretation controls multi‑statute disputes)
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) (competing interpretive maxims may apply)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (agency balancing recognized but does not automatically preclude other remedies)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (preclusion where regulation made an agency policy choice that a private suit would conflict with)
- 62 Cases of Jam v. United States, 340 U.S. 593 (1951) (FDCA’s public‑health purpose)