Alkaline water false advertising claim is unappetizing, court rules

Weiss v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 8:18-cv-01130-JLS-GJS, 2018
WL 6340758 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018)
Trader Joe’s sells Alkaline Water, whose label includes:
• “pH 9.5 +”
• “Our Alkaline Water + Electrolytes is ionized to pH 9.5+.”
• “pH is the measure of acidity and alkalinity. The higher
the pH, the greater the alkalinity.”
• “ionized to achieve the perfect balance”
• “refresh & hydrate”
• “hundreds of plus symbols” on the label
Trader Joe’s flyer touting Alkaline Water said:
• “Whether you’ve just eaten an abundance of corn or
cranberries (foods high in acid); or you’ve been sweating profusely; and/or
you’ve been reading this Flyer (because obviously that would make you thirsty)
our Alkaline Water + Electrolytes is a drink that can satisfy.”
• “The mineralized water is purified through reverse
osmosis, then run through electric currents (electrolysis), which changes the structure
of the water and raises the pH to 9.5+ (neutral pH of water is 7).”
• “Trader Joe’s Alkaline Water + Electrolytes is water and
then some.”
Weiss alleged that the label misled her to believe that the
Water was a “superior source of hydration” and could help “balance pH
internally.” She further alleged that the Alkaline Water does not actually have
a 9.5 pH balance and that “the actual pH at the time of purchase and
consumption was far less on the pH scale.” She brought the usual California

The court found that this was all puffery except the “not 9.5 pH” part, and
that wasn’t sufficiently pled, a holding I find dubious.
Initially, some of the complaint alleged lack of
substantiation of the purported health benefits, which isn’t actionable by
private parties under California law. The label and marketing also didn’t make the
health claims she identified, because it was mostly mere puffery. E.g., “refresh”
was “a vague, generalized assertion incapable of being proved false or of being
reasonably interpreted as a statement of objective fact,” as were the plus symbols.
Nor did the label claim to be a superior source of hydration, just a source. The
“ionized to achieve the perfect balance” claim didn’t claim that consumers
would become perfectly balanced or tout any health benefits from the perfect balance.
As for the flyer touting the water as good “[w]hether you’ve
just eaten an abundance of corn or cranberries (foods high in acid); or you’ve
been sweating profusely,” there was still no health benefit claim.  I think this ignores the effects of implicature.
Why would it be relevant to whether you should choose this water that you’ve
been eating foods high in acid?  There’s
no reason to mention that other than to imply that the water you drink should “balance”
your acidity (an impossible task in my case, I fear). But because the flyer
finished by claiming to “satisfy,” it was mere puffery. As for “water and then
some,” it followed the description of the water as containing 0.1% “minerals
(electrolytes), harvested from the lake region of Utah.”
The 9.5 pH claim was factual and falsifiable. However, Weiss
failed to plead with particularity “how she came to believe that the
representation is false.” That’s a diversion, mostly corrected in the court’s
ultimate analysis. We really don’t care how she came to believe that it’s
false, or even if she did come to believe that—her belief in falsity is not an
element of her claim. We care whether the statement was false. 
And as with so many Twiqbal
issues this is all about the court’s common sense: pleading that the pH was not
9.5 is a factual allegation. Is that plausible? Sure, why couldn’t water not
have pH 9.5?  Apparently much water
doesn’t, according to TJ’s itself. However, the court wants a “basis” for the
assertion of falsity. “Even assuming that viewing videos on the internet or personally
testing the pH balance of the Water is enough to support her claim,” that
wasn’t in the complaint, and the complaint needed to specify when the pH wasn’t
9.5—at bottling, at purchase, or at consumption.  In a footnote, the court warned: “The Court seriously
questions Plaintiff’s decision to bring this suit if the only support she has
for this claim is what she has seen on the internet, or her own rudimentary
testing. Further, the Court reminds Plaintiff’s counsel that attorneys are
subject to sanctions under Rule 11 when they present ‘factual contentions
[that] have [no] evidentiary support or … will [not] likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s