SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – Lawyers’ attempt to recover millions of dollars from Snapple has been thrown out by a federal judge who rejected claims the term “Sorta Sweet” on bottles of tea is misleading to customers.
San Francisco federal judge Jon Tigar on Sept. 20 threw out the lawsuit filed by attorney Spencer Sheehan and the firm Reese LLP. It’s at least Sheehan’s second loss in a case of this nature, as Coca-Cola in July fended off claims over its “slightly sweet” Gold Peak tea.
The lawsuits allege “slightly” and “sorta” confuse customers who are surprised to learn the exact sugar content.
“First, ‘Sorta Sweet’ cannot reasonably be interpreted as representing anything about the product’s sugar level,” Tigar ruled, rejecting the argument the labels should conform to a regulation that “sometimes” requires the phrase “sweetened with nonnutritive sweetener(s).”
“It does not identify sugar as the only potential nutritive ingredient, defined as an ingredient that would be ‘utilized in normal metabolism,’ which can create sweetness.
“Moreover, even assuming that sugar were the only such nutritive ingredient, the regulation presumes that sweetness may result from nonnutritive ingredients – i.e., something other than sugar; it therefore undermines rather than supports (plaintiff) Sommer’s position that ‘sweet’ refers to sugar content.”
Snapple filed its motion to dismiss in January, noting the bottles of tea also include the sugar content in their nutrition facts panel.
Tigar determined “Sorta Sweet” is puffery that can’t be at the center of a lawsuit. Tigar cited the “slightly sweet” decision in tossing the Snapple case with prejudice.
“Sommer herself argues ‘sorta’ means ‘slightly,’ and fails to explain why ‘Sorta Sweet’ should be any more actionable than ‘Slightly Sweet,’” he wrote.
Snapple noted two other versions of the tea, one marketed as unsweetened and one as sweet. Sorta Sweet has roughly half the sugar content of sweet, and unsweetened has zero grams.