CSPI Files Consumer Fraud Class Action Claiming Vitamin Water Isn't "Healthy" Because It Contains Sugar
The nation’s self-appointed nanny, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”), truly outdid itself last week, filing a class action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court to “protect” Californians from Vitamin Water, which CSPI blames, in part, for America’s "obesity epidemic." What could possibly be wrong with Vitamin Water, you ask? Not the FDA-required nutritional information on the label, apparently. CSPI concedes that it accurately reflects the amount of vitamins and other ingredients in this line of beverages.
The fraud – according to CSPI – is that the beverages also contain sugar, while the label and the marketing touts the possible energy and health benefits of the other added ingredients. Of course, both the amount of sugar and the amount of calories are squarely stated in the “Nutrition Facts” on the label. And although the beverages do not purport to be “Sugar Free” or “Diet,” they do taste sweet, which should give the calorie-conscious consumer some clue to check the label for sugar content and calories.
Although CSPI claims throughout the complaint that the beverages are “misbranded” and marketed in a “false,” “misleading” and “deceptive” manner in violation of California’s Unfair Competition law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), its Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750) and its False Advertising Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500), the simple fact is this: the complaint never identifies a single false, misleading or deceptive statement, nor can it truthfully say that the calories or sugar content of these beverages are concealed from the consumer.
The complaint suffers from too many infirmities to list here. In the unjust enrichment count, it asks for class members to get their money back even though they received the benefit they paid for, drank it, and can’t return it to the defendant. The complaint also pleads fraud with no particularity whatsoever. It does not limit the class definition to purchases that were made in California, thus creating choice of law problems. And it premises liability on satirical marketing copy – such as “this combination of zinc and fortifying vitamins can . . . keep you healthy as a horse” – that obviously would be puffery under California law. See, e.g., Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1361 (Cal. App. 2003) (“boasts” and “meaningless superlatives” that are not “factual representations that a given standard is met” are akin to puffing and are not actionable).
CSPI’s grandstanding lawsuit against one of America’s most respected product manufacturers – which it filed with two for-profit plaintiffs’ firms as co-counsel – is precisely the sort of abuse of legal process that gives consumer fraud class actions a bad name.
