Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC

POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

May 2, 2014, Argued; January 30, 2015, Decided

No. 13-1060

Opinion

 [**116]  [*483]  Srinivasan [***2] , Circuit Judge: POM Wonderful, LLC produces, markets, and sells a number of pomegranate-based products. In a series of advertisements from 2003 to 2010, POM touted medical studies ostensibly showing that daily consumption of its products could treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of various ailments, including heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. Many of those ads mischaracterized the scientific evidence concerning the health  [*484]   [**117]  benefits of POM's products with regard to those diseases.

In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint charging that POM and related parties had made false, misleading, and unsubstantiated representations in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. After extensive administrative proceedings, the full Commission voted to hold POM and the associated parties liable for violating the FTC Act and ordered them to cease and desist from making misleading and inadequately supported claims about the health benefits of POM products. The Commission's order also bars POM and the related parties from running future ads asserting that their products treat or prevent any disease unless armed with at least two randomized, controlled, [***3]  human clinical trials demonstrating statistically significant results.

POM and the associated parties petition for review of the Commission's order, arguing that the order runs afoul of the FTC Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First Amendment. We deny the bulk of petitioners' challenges. The FTC Act proscribes—and the First Amendment does not protect—deceptive and misleading advertisements. Here, we see no basis for setting aside the Commission's conclusion that many of POM's ads made misleading or false claims about POM products. Contrary to petitioners' contentions, moreover, the Commission had no obligation to adhere to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before imposing liability in its adjudicatory proceeding. Additionally, we affirm the Commission's remedial order insofar as it requires POM to gain the support of at least one randomized, controlled, human clinical trial study before claiming a causal relationship between consumption of POM products and the treatment or prevention of any disease. We find inadequate justification, however, for the Commission's blanket requirement of at least two such studies as a precondition to any disease-related claim. In all other respects, we deny the [***4]  petition for review.

Since 1987, entrepreneurs Stewart and Lynda Resnick have acquired and planted thousands of acres of pomegranate orchards in California. In 1998, they began to collaborate with doctors and scientists to investigate the potential health benefits of pomegranate consumption. They formed POM Wonderful, LLC to make, market, and sell pomegranate-based products. The products include POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice and two dietary supplements, POMx Pills and POMx Liquid, which contain pomegranate extract in concentrated form. The Resnicks are the sole owners of POM Wonderful and an affiliated company, Roll Global LLC, which provides advertising and other services to POM. Those entities have engaged in a broad array of advertising campaigns promoting POM products through various media including magazine ads, newspaper inserts, billboards, posters, brochures, press releases, and website materials.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

777 F.3d 478 *; 414 U.S. App. D.C. 111 **; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1489 ***; 2015-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P79,044

POM WONDERFUL, LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8944 (D.C. Cir., May 28, 2015)

Rehearing, en banc, denied by POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8946 (D.C. Cir., May 28, 2015)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2991 (U.S., May 2, 2016)

Prior History:  [***1] On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Trade Commission.

In re POM Wonderful LLC, 2013 FTC LEXIS 6 (F.T.C., Jan. 10, 2013)

CORE TERMS

juice, pomegranate, substantiation, patients, FTC, advertiser, disease, studies, consumers, products, misleading, efficacy, establishment, erectile, heart disease, deceptive, petitioners', prostate cancer, FTC Act, consumption, two-RCT, scientific evidence, randomized, reliable, fig, scientific, drinking, blood flow, disease-related, dysfunction

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, False Advertising, US Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission Act, General Overview, Agency Rulemaking, Agency Adjudication, Remedies, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Injunctions, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Commercial Speech, Advertising