Plaintiffs v Snapple
Class Action Suit Against Snapple Reinstated
In what could be a big blow for consumer product companies, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a New Jersey statewide class action suit against Snapple, finding that federal regulation does not preempt consumer fraud claims involving Snapples All Natural labeling.
The class action was initiated by New Jersey resident Stacy Holk, who allegeldy bought two bottles of Snapple in May of 2007 at a premium price of $1.09 each. Holk was apparently surprised and distressed to discover that her Snapple contained high-fructose corn syrup, despite having the words all natural on the label. Represented by Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer and Tunney & Halbfish, Holk filed a class action in New Jersey state court, alleging consumer fraud and breach of warranty.
The appellate court found that FDA policy (and legal precedent) left room for state regulation in food and beverage labeling. It also concluded that the FDAs informal policy on the use of the phrase "all natural" did not preempt Holks claims.
The suit seeks disgorgement of Snapple's profits from its allegedly false labeling.
Since the charges, Snapple has revised its formula, replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar.
For more information please contact:
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive
Suite 900 Box 10
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
Phone: 732.636.8000
Fax: 732.855.6117
