Prescott v. Abbott Laboratories, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2024 WL
2843092, No. 23-cv-04348-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2024)

Abbott Laboratories’s Glucerna line of powders and shakes
are marketed as scientifically designed for people with diabetes to help manage
blood sugar. Plaintiffs alleged that because the products contain sucralose and
other additives, the products don’t provide the promised health benefits. They
brought the usual
California statutory claims. The court accepts the allegations as
sufficient, except for standing for injunctive relief.

The challenged language includes “to help manage blood
sugar,” “#1 doctor recommended brand,” and “scientifically designed for people
with diabetes.” The side label states that the beverages are “designed to help
minimize blood sugar spikes in people with diabetes compared to high glycemic
carbohydrates.”

one of the challenged products with front label claims

“Online and in stores, Glucerna shakes and powders are
placed with health and nutritional supplements near diabetes diagnostic
equipment and blood glucose tests. One retailer specifically categorizes
Glucerna products as ‘Diabetes Management’ on its website.” Plaintiffs alleged
that the artificial sweetener used, sucralose, is associated with obesity, type
2 diabetes (as well as its precursor condition, metabolic syndrome),
hypertension, and cardiovascular disease; that sucralose can deregulate blood
sugar by disrupting the gut microbiome and killing pancreatic cells that release
insulin; and that sucralose can cause cells to become resistant to insulin,
which can lead to type 2 diabetes or obesity. Several organizations, including
the World Health Organization, have advised against consuming sucralose and
other artificial sweeteners. Plaintiffs cited similar scientific findings for
the additional ingredients maltodextrin and carrageenan.

They alleged that “#1 doctor recommended brand” and “scientifically
designed for people with diabetes” conveyed that Glucerna products “aid in
managing blood sugar generally” and are “scientifically capable of the
treatment of diabetes or other health conditions.”

Abbott argued that the labels didn’t make such broad claims:
they didn’t plausibly advertise that the products were “over-the-counter aids
to help manage diabetes and blood sugar generally” and “can be used to
regulate, achieve, and manage normal and healthy blood sugar levels.” Instead,
the drinks were merely intended as a “snack or meal replacement” formulated “to
help minimize blood sugar spikes in people with diabetes compared to high
glycemic carbohydrates.”

This was a factual question. And unlike in other cases where
an ambiguous label could be easily clarified by reading the ingredient list, the
side label explanation about minimizing blood sugar spikes didn’t directly contradict
the claims that plaintiffs alleged they took away. “This is not the sort of
ambiguity that can be definitively resolved by reference to a back label.”
Plaintiffs also  plausibly alleged that
the other claims on the front label—that Glucerna products are recommended by
doctors and scientifically designed for diabetics—make more sweeping
representations about how the products work.

As for the alleged harms of the ingredients, Abbott argued
that the studies cited didn’t support the claims and that plaintiffs had
layered inference on top of inference. This was a factual question that could not
be resolved at this stage. “If the allegations directly contradicted the cited
studies plaintiffs’ allegations might fairly be deemed implausible, but that is
not the case here.” 

However, plaintiffs’ alleged intent to buy Glucerna products
again in the future if they can be sure the products will provide the promised
benefits was insufficient; because of the nature ofe the alleged deception,
they could easily determine based on the ingredients list whether Glucerna had
been reformulated without the challenged ingredients.

from Blogger http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2024/06/where-ingredients-list-cant-clarify.html