Summary
The Supreme Court held that competitors may bring claims under the Lanham Act challenging food and beverage labels regulated by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The FDCA does not preclude such claims because the two statutes have different purposes, requirements, and enforcement mechanisms, and neither statute expressly limits the operation of the other. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations preclude a competitor from bringing a Lanham Act claim challenging a food or beverage label regulated by the FDCA.
- Whether the FDCA's enforcement structure, express preemption provision, or the greater specificity of its regulations establishes that Congress intended to preclude such Lanham Act claims.
- Whether FDA regulations authorizing or regulating aspects of a food label can preclude a Lanham Act claim absent congressional authorization.
Holdings
- Competitors may bring Lanham Act claims challenging food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA. Neither statute expressly forbids or limits such claims, and the FDCA and Lanham Act are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
- The FDCA's assignment of enforcement authority primarily to the Federal Government and its express preemption of certain state-law requirements do not indicate congressional intent to preclude private claims under another federal statute.
- FDA regulations addressing food and beverage labeling do not preclude a Lanham Act claim absent congressional authorization to displace the Lanham Act.
Key quotations
“Competitors, in their own interest, may bring Lanham Act claims like POM’s that challenge food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA.” (573 U.S. at 102)
“In consequence, food and beverage labels regulated by the FDCA are not, under the terms of either statute, off limits to Lanham Act claims.” (573 U.S. at 109)
“An agency may not reorder federal statutory rights without congressional authorization.” (573 U.S. at 117)
Factual background
POM Wonderful produced and sold pomegranate-blueberry juice products and competed with Coca-Cola's Minute Maid juice blend. Coca-Cola's product contained approximately 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice, but its front label prominently displayed the words "pomegranate blueberry" and used smaller type for the description that it was a flavored blend of five juices. POM alleged that the label misled consumers into believing that the product consisted predominantly of pomegranate and blueberry juice, causing POM to lose sales.
Procedural history
The district court held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations precluded Lanham Act challenges to the name and label of Coca-Cola's juice blend. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Congress entrusted juice-labeling matters to the FDA and that judicial intervention could undermine FDA expertise and authority. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.