100% Pure Aloe can contain preservatives, stabilizers in the absence of evidence from consumers that they care

Beardsall v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2020 WL 1429214, No. 19-1850 (2d Cir. Mar. 24,
2020)

The court explains:
Plaintiffs brought state consumer deception claims [under 12 different
states’ laws] against defendant Fruit of the Earth and its retailer clients.
They alleged that defendants’ aloe vera products did not contain any aloe vera
and lacked acemannan, a compound that plaintiffs say is responsible for the
plant’s therapeutic qualities. But uncontested facts drawn from discovery
showed these allegations to be false: the products were made from aloe vera and
contained at least some acemannan.
To stave off summary judgment, plaintiffs changed their theory,
claiming that the products were degraded and did not contain enough acemannan.
Plaintiffs said that it was therefore misleading to call the products aloe vera
gel, to represent them as “100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel,” and to market them as
providing the therapeutic effects associated with aloe vera. Plaintiffs have
not, however, presented evidence that some concentration of acemannan is
necessary to call a product aloe or to produce a therapeutic effect. Nor have
they offered evidence that consumers care at all about acemannan concentration.
Whatever theoretical merit these claims might have had on a different record,
this record simply does not contain evidence that would allow a reasonable jury
to find in favor of plaintiffs. With this dearth of evidence, the district
court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. We affirm.
The aloe vera gels
at issue are made by processing aloe vera plants, including the addition of stabilizers,
thickeners, and preservatives to make the final gel product shelf-stable. “The
parties agree that the products are 98% aloe gel (the reconstituted aloe vera
solids) and 2% other ingredients (stabilizers and preservatives).” The Fruit of
the Earth label calls the product “Aloe Vera 100% Gel” and “100% Pure Aloe Vera
Gel.” An asterisk after “100% Gel” refers to information on the back of the
label: “Plus stabilizers and preservatives to insure [sic] potency and
efficacy.” Each label’s ingredient list shows that the product contains aloe
juice and various other substances.
(1) Acemannan concentration.
“No reasonable consumer, plaintiffs argue, would purchase an aloe vera product
that contains low concentrations of what plaintiffs maintain is an important
therapeutic component.” This is a theoretically viable claim, but there was no
evidence of material misleadingness. Citing cases, including Lanham Act cases,
that asked for survey evidence, the court noted no evidence that consumers made
purchasing decisions based on ingredient content. Nor was there evidence that
some concentration of acemannan was necessary to render the product effective.
The plaintiff’s
expert testified that fresh aloe should contain at least 5% acemannan by dry weight,
pointing to a trade organization’s standards, while that used by defendants contained
1.01% acemannan by dry weight, and testing on the final product indicated
correspondingly lower concentrations of acemannan in the final product compared
to what the expert expected in an aloe product containing undiluted aloe juice.
In a footnote, the court noted that 45 mg/L and 65 mg/L, compared to the
expected 200–500 mg/L, did not count as “trace,” “infinitesimally small,”
“barely detectable,” and “nonexisten[t].” Anyway, there was no testimony that
lower acemannan concentration meant that the product couldn’t fairly be
described as aloe, and no expert opinion on the relationship between aloe
concentration and efficacy.  The named
plaintiffs’ testimony that they found the labeling misleading did not fill the
gap; “they all felt misled because they were incorrectly informed by their
lawyers that the products contain little or no aloe vera.”  Cases allowing claims to proceed have
involved extrinsic evidence to show how consumers were likely to be materially
misled, such as survey evidence that consumers did not expect “soluble and
microground” coffee in Keurig-compatible pods to be instant coffee, or survey
evidence going to materiality, or internal marketing documents about the value
of consumer perceptions of strength. “Plaintiffs here, in contrast, have
offered no evidence that the products fell short of consumers’ expectations in
any material way.”
The court qualified
its holding: “This is not to say that extrinsic evidence in the form of
consumer surveys or market research is always needed for a plaintiff to survive
summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law on a deceptive advertising
claim. But such evidence is necessary where the advertising is not clearly
misleading on its face and materiality is in doubt.” Without such evidence
here, there was not enough to go to a jury.
(2) Therapeutic
efficacy: again, failed for lack of evidence that the products were ineffective
or that they didn’t contain enough acemannan to achieve a therapeutic effect.
(3) “100% Pure.” First,
there wasn’t enough evidence that this was a misrepresentation that the product
was “high quality” or “especially effective” aloe; there was no evidence
indicating that consumers interpret these as statements of quality. Second, the
preservatives and stabilizers didn’t make the claim misleading. The district
court found the label ambiguous and clarified by the ingredients list.
Plaintiffs conceded in briefing and depositions that “the presence of
preservatives—in reasonably small amounts—was acceptable and something they
expected,” and that “[n]o [p]laintiff took the label to mean that there was
absolutely nothing other than aloe vera in the bottle.” So this theory didn’t
work on these facts, though the court pointedly announced its skepticism of
defendants’ position “that an asterisk pointing to an ingredient list in fine
print could save virtually any deceptive slogan claiming purity.”

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3bzBe31

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:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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