Page 1
‘Joint Juice’ Properly Found to Have Made False Claims—Ninth Circuit
Decision by District Court for Northern District of California, Decided Under New York Law
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a judgment determining that false claims are made for “Joint Juice” products. |
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a judgment in the District Court for the Northern District of California in a consumer action against an Anaheim manufacturer based on the assertion that “Joint Juice” products are useless in relieving joint pain, but remanded for a determination, under recent case law, as to whether an award of more than $8 million is excessive.
Although tried under New York law, the outcome is bound to affect the resolution of a like action in which California law applies. Nine actions were filed after certification of a nationwide class was denied, each action to be tried under the law of a different state.
The first class to be certified was that comprised of California plaintiffs. Each side chose a case that would go forward first, with the plaintiffs picking the New York action and defendant Premier Nutrition deciding on the Massachusetts proceeding.
Mary Beth Montera was the named plaintiff in the case to be tried under New York law. A jury found that Joint Juice—comprised of glucosamine and chondroitin—does not alleviate joint pain caused by arthritis, despite its claims.
It assessed actual damages at $1,488,078.49, but District Court Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the Central District of California raised the amount to $8,312,450 based on statutory damages under New York law. He also awarded $4,583,004.90 in prejudgment interest.
Yesterday’s opinion was authored by Ninth Circuit Judge Morgan Christen. The opinion rejects Premier’s contentions as to entitlement to judgment as a matter of law—core contentions also put forth in the other actions—holds that prejudgment interest is not available, and remands for a redetermination of damages in light of the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 decision in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc.
In Wakefield, it was said that statutory damages can be so disproportionate to the injury as to defy due process. Mary Beth Montera is the named plaintiff in the case on behalf of New York users of Joint Juice. Vincent D. Mullins is the class representative in the action under California law.
Christen’s Opinion
In yesterday’s opinion, Christen said:
“[W]e conclude that the district court correctly rejected Premier’s argument that Joint Juice’s packaging was not misleading as a matter of law.”
She wrote:
“…Montera alleges that the Joint Juice class members did not get what they paid for because they purchased a product that was advertised to improve joint health but in reality did not….Montera properly alleged deceptive conduct that was distinct from her claimed injury. Premier’s deceptive conduct was its statements touting joint health on Joint Juice’s packaging, and the class’s claimed injury was the purchase of a product that did not deliver its advertised benefits. The jury found that Joint Juice had no value to the class members without its advertised joint health benefits.”
Tax Advisor’s Letter
Under a Food and Drug Administration regulation, dietary supplement label may include “structure/function” claims” as opposed to disease claims. Among Premier’s contentions was that it was unduly prejudiced by admission of a letter its tax advisor sent to VI Salus the California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling in 2010 protesting that a five-cent bottle deposit tax should not be imposed on Joint Juice because it is a “medical supplement” and “over-the-counter medication,” rather than a beverage.
Christen responded:
“This argument fails because extra-label evidence of the message intended by Joint Juice’s packaging was relevant to Montera’s defense against Premier’s regulatory safe harbor argument that the Joint Juice label made structure/function claims rather than disease claims.”
The case is Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 22-16375.
California consumer protection law is not unlike New York’s. Mullins proceeded under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
His complaint recites representations that Joint Juice “helps keep cartilage lubricated and flexible” and that consumers should “drink daily for healthy, flexible joints.” It sets forth (with paragraph numbering omitted):
“Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is designed to induce consumers to purchase Joint Juice because of their reliance upon the accuracy of the deceptive health benefits message. As a result of its extensive marketing campaign (in 2009, Defendant spent a reported S3.5 million advertising Joint Juice), and in just the past six years. Defendant has sold over S100 million dollars of the Joint Juice products.
“Defendant, however, has sold products that do not perform as advertised. As a result of the misleading messages conveyed by its marketing campaign. Defendant has caused consumers to purchase products that do not perform as advertised.”
That action is Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corporation, 3:13-cv-01271.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company