Judge Green-Lights ‘All Natural’ False Advertising Lawsuit

A U.S. District Judge in New York recently ruled that a plaintiff who claimed Nordic Naturals products aren’t “all natural” could have her day in court.

The core claim in the lawsuit is that the company’s name, “Nordic Naturals,” and its prominent appearance at the top of all the products at issue, tricks shoppers into thinking that the supplements use only natural ingredients.

Nordic Naturals argued that this premise was flimsy, noting that it never claimed its supplements were “all natural” or “100% natural.” The company said that reasonable consumers would not be confused into thinking supplements that said “Naturals” were totally without synthetic ingredients.

Judge Nina Morrison ruled that the plaintiff’s argument had some merit. “This argument relies on too fine a distinction to succeed at the motion to dismiss stage,” Judge Morrison said. “Here, the court agrees with the numerous other courts that have found this distinction unpersuasive at the motion to dismiss stage. Defendants have failed to show, as a matter of law, that while a reasonable consumer would be deceived by an ‘all natural’ or ‘100% natural’ representation, she would not be deceived by a prominent representation of ‘Naturals’ on the label.”

“This is particularly so where, as here, many ingredients in defendant’s products, such as citric acid, pectin, or bovine gelatin, are ones that a reasonable consumer may believe are natural,” the judge said. “A reasonable consumer may not be aware that these ingredients, with references to flora or fauna in their names, are actually synthetic. Therefore, even if a consumer were to turn to the back label and see these ingredients, they may be no less in the dark as to whether the composition of defendant’s product is entirely ‘natural.'”

Deceptive Marketing Terms

Some people think such claims are flimsy. In 2013, a consumer claimed that Nestle’s all-natural refrigerated pastas weren’t all-natural. A judge ruled against the consumer, writing that “the reasonable consumer is aware” that “mass-produced” pastas do not emerge  “fully-formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes”

However, in many cases, this problem is real. Such misleading statements disappoint consumers and usually prompt them to buy products and/or services they wouldn’t otherwise buy. In some cases, false and misleading statements cause personal injuries.

Furthermore, the government doesn’t define most marketing statements very well, and it often doesn’t verify the claims. Free-range chicken is a good example. This phrase creates a mental picture of chicken meandering happily and freely over lots of land. But the legal definition of a free-range chicken is an animal that has access to the outdoors for at least 51 percent of its life.

Suppose 10,000 chickens are in a chicken coop that has one small door a single bird could squeeze through. Legally, the company may label the entire lot of poultry as free-range chicken.

Sometimes, government inspectors make onsite visits and verify such claims. Usually, however, the company is on the honor system.

False Advertising, Defective Drugs, and Personal Injury

In many ways false advertising cases and personal injury cases are very similar. Companies make misleading statements to sell as many products as possible, even if that means separating consumers from their money. Similarly, many companies want to see as many products as possible, and they don’t care if these efforts cause personal injury.

Dangerous drug cases are a good example of the similarity between these two kinds of legal matters.

Drug companies usually manufacture the strongest possible medicines. Powerful drugs have powerful side-effects. Frequently, after the approval process, drug companies hide information about these side-effects from government regulators. 

The journey from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval is usually about twelve years. The average cancer latency period is about fifty years. Therefore, many companies unknowingly sell dangerous drugs. However, when the results of cancer and other studies are available instead of doing the right thing, these companies sometimes bury this information, so they can keep selling their products.

If that happens, a product liability attorney has several legal options, such as:

• 未能发出警告: Companies have a duty to warn customers about dangerous side effects. That legal responsibility doesn’t end after the FDA approval process is completed.
• 设计缺陷: Drug makers have a legal responsibility to take potentially strong side-effects into account when they design products. If a defective design causes injury, the company could be strictly liable for damages.
• 制造缺陷: Strict liability also applies to injuries caused by manufacturing defects. A seemingly minor problem, such as a worker with the flu, could contaminate an entire lot of medicine.

In all these cases, lawyer can usually obtain compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Usually, only economic damages are available in false advertising matters.

Resolving Civil Claims

Over 95 percent of dangerous drug claims settle out of court. Lawyers don’t settle causes because they’re afraid of what might happen at trial. Instead, lawyers settle cases because these resolutions significantly benefit victims.

For example, out-of-court settlements bundle speed and certainty. These resolutions end cases much earlier. Additionally, a drug company can tie a court verdict up in appeal for years or decades. Cancer and other serious injury victims need money now, so they can fight their diseases. Only an out-of-court settlement guarantees that kind of immediacy.

When companies lie, people get hurt. Contact Napoli Shkolnik for a 免费咨询. We will only recover a fee when we win your case.