Last week, a California federal judge revived a putative class action accusing
Amy's Kitchen Inc. of misleading customers by labeling sugar as
"evaporated cane juice" on its products. In a
finding that puts the case on hold until the FDA weighs in, Judge
Illston found that a decision to permanently dismiss the case would
be unjust if the FDA later decides that "evaporated cane
juice" is not an acceptable term for sugar on food
A number of similar lawsuits have sprung up in the last few
years alleging deceptive labeling for use of the term
"evaporated cane juice" rather than sugar. To
support these claims, plaintiffs cite to the FDA's draft guidance, issued in
March 2014, wherein the agency stated that referring to sweeteners
as "evaporated cane juice" is misleading. On the
other hand, defendants in these cases argue that the court should
defer to the FDA, who has yet to issue formal guidelines on the
matter, and dismiss these claims under the doctrine of primary
As Judge Illston's ruling demonstrates, the trend among
courts is to put these cases on ice until the FDA issues final
guidance on the issue. Last October, this space discussed a similar situation where
California courts were staying false advertising suits until the
FDA takes a formal stance on use of the term
"natural." However, the FDA has not taken a
formal, binding stance on the term "natural"
and has officially declined to do so. Here, the FDA
has taken a stance—albeit an informal one—on
"evaporated cane sugar," has re-opened the comment
period on its draft industry guidance, and will likely
issue amended/final guidelines in the near future. So we
expect a different outcome for the "evaporated cane
juice" cases than what we witnessed in the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, the SEC announced its first enforcement action against a company for using language in confidentiality agreements that the SEC concluded had the potential to stifle the whistleblower process.
Time to dust off those federal jurisdiction hornbooks! The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Office of the Solicitor General (collectively, "the government") submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in response to a petition for a writ of certiorari in the closely-watched case Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins, No. 13-1339.
On March 19, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a new consumer complaint policy that gives individual complainants the ability to provide narrative versions of their complaints...