ARTICLE
6 December 2024

When Should Consumers Review The Back Of The Label In Order To Understand The Front?

GA
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)

Contributor

Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA) logo
With firms representing more than 90 countries, each GALA member has the local expertise and experience in advertising, marketing and promotion law that will help your campaign achieve its objectives, and navigate the legal minefield successfully. GALA is a uniquely sensitive global resource whose members maintain frequent contact with each other to maximize the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts for their shared clients. GALA provides the premier worldwide resource to advertisers and agencies seeking solutions to problems involving the complex legal issues affecting today's marketplace.
Del Monte Foods sells packaged fruit cups that have the phrase "fruit naturals" on them. A consumer sued, alleging that the use the word "naturals" is misleading...
United States Consumer Protection

Del Monte Foods sells packaged fruit cups that have the phrase “fruit naturals” on them. A consumer sued, alleging that the use the word “naturals” is misleading, since it falsely suggests that all of the ingredients in the fruit cups are, in fact, natural.

A federal district court dismissed the case. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Here's why.

Looking at the label, the Ninth Circuit held that the word “naturals” is ambiguous. In the Ninth Circuit, a claim on the front of a label is ambiguous if “reasonable consumers would necessarily require more information before they could reasonably conclude that the front label makes a specific factual representation.” 

Why does the Ninth Circuit think that the word “naturals” is ambiguous on the front of a fruit cup? First, the word "naturals" is used as a noun, not an adjective. That, along with the fact that the “fruit naturals” phrase has a registered trademark symbol after it, led the Ninth Circuit to believe that consumers will understand this just to be the name of the product, not a specific factual claim about how the product was made. Second, the Ninth Circuit thought that the use of the phrase “in extra light syrup” on the packaging, which shows a picture of the fruit that's in the syrup, could convey that although the fruit was natural, the syrup is not. 

What's the significance of the Ninth Circuit's holding that the term “naturals” is ambiguous? Because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the front label is “unambiguously deceptive to an ordinary consumer," this means that reasonable consumers (at least in the Ninth Circuit) would look to the back label to clear up any confusion about what the term means. And, here, “the back label accurately and clearly discloses several synthetic ingredients about which Plaintiff complains.” 

Bryan v. Del Monte Foods (9th Circuit, November 22, 2024).

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More