44 Cal.App.5th 1125
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Califia Farms sold “Cuties 100% Tangerine Juice” labeled on the front: “100% Tangerine Juice,” “No Sugar Added,” and “Never From Concentrate.”
- Plaintiff Michelle Shaeffer (a diabetic) bought the product because her children like tangerines and the label stated “No Sugar Added”; she alleged she chose it over other tangerine juices for that reason.
- Shaeffer sued under the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200), California’s false advertising law (§17500) and the CLRA (Civ. Code §1770), seeking class certification for purchasers of Cuties Juice labeled “No Sugar Added.”
- She alleged the label was deceptive because it implied competing tangerine juices contain added sugar (making Cuties healthier) and also violated federal “no sugar added” labeling prerequisites by (1) not substituting for a food that "normally contains added sugars" and (2) omitting required statements about calorie status and directing consumers to the nutrition panel.
- The trial court sustained Califia’s demurrer without leave to amend; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the “No Sugar Added” claim nonactionable as a matter of law and finding other theories deficient or lacking standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the “No Sugar Added” label is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer | “No Sugar Added” implies competitors add sugar and that Cuties is different/healthier | The statement is literally true and a reasonable consumer would not infer competitors add sugar | Not deceptive as a matter of law — reasonable consumers would not make those inferential leaps |
| Whether the label unlawfully violates federal “no sugar added” prereq about the food it “resembles and substitutes for” | The comparable/substituted food is 100% tangerine juice, which does not normally contain added sugars | The relevant comparison class is broader (e.g., fruit juices) that can normally contain added sugars | The regulation’s comparator can be a broader similar class, not solely an identical product; plaintiff failed to plead noncompliance |
| Whether omission of required statements (not “low calorie”/“calorie reduced” and direction to nutrition panel) renders the label unlawful | Label omitted those statements required by 21 C.F.R. §101.60(c)(2)(v) | Even if omitted, plaintiff didn’t plead reliance on calorie info; allegation threadbare | Allegation insufficient and, in any event, plaintiff lacks standing because she didn’t rely on calorie info |
| Whether plaintiff has standing (actual reliance and causation) | Reliance may be presumed as to material omissions; diabetic status makes calorie info material | Plaintiff bought for children’s preference and sugar concern (not calories) — no actual reliance on omitted calorie statement | No standing: plaintiff did not plausibly allege she actually relied on the allegedly unlawful omission, so claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (Cal. 2002) (advertising and labels actionable if likely to deceive members of the public as viewed by the reasonable consumer)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (class representative must show actual reliance for standing even where deceptive practices may be presumed to be material)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (standing requires economic injury caused by the alleged unfair practice and actual reliance for certain claims)
- Rubenstein v. The Gap, Inc., 14 Cal.App.5th 870 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (truthful brand labels may not imply unsupported comparisons to competitors; reasonable consumer standard limits implied claims)
- Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (a literally true but misleading label may be actionable if a reasonable consumer would be misled by implied representations)
- Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 277 (Cal. 2014) (caution against treating any truthful product boasting as fodder for litigation; context matters for deceptive-implication claims)