Food Beverage Marketing

Coca-Cola Unscathed by Happy Meal Changes?

1.3 ounces of french fries are out. Caramel dipping sauce is out. A few apple slices are in. Sugary drinks, however, appear to be fully in the mix if not more so now. The 12 oz. “child’s size” Happy Meal soft drink, ranging from 110-120 calories for the non-diet carbonated options, remains the same. The new chocolate milk option has 170 calories and 25 grams of sugar. To put that into perspective, the container of caramel dipping sauce that will no longer be offered has 70 calories and 9 grams of sugar. As the fountain syrup supplier for McDonald’s, The Coca-Cola Company must be rather pleased that McDonald’s made no overt change to its default drink option for its “most popular” Happy Meal combinations–soda. Chocolate milk may compete with soda, but for parents concerned about calories McDonald’s has managed to position its Coca-Cola brand Happy Meal soda offerings as lower-calorie alternatives to the flavored milk. Makes one wonder whether The Coca-Cola Company is whistling “badda ba, ba ba, I’m lovin’ it” in response to McDonald’s Happy Meal menu changes.

Coca-Cola Unscathed by Happy Meal Changes? Read More »

Organizations that Care About Health Should Play No Part in the Soft Drink Industry’s Effort to Rehabilitate Its Public Image

by Cara Wilking, J.D. CLICK HERE DOWNLOAD THIS POST AS A PDF INTRODUCTION The United States has the highest per capita rate of carbonated soft drink consumption in the world at 736 eight-ounce servings or 46 gallons per person in 2009.[1] The soft drink industry is dominated by three major companies: The Coca-Cola Company (“Coke”), PepsiCo. (“Pepsi”), and Dr. Pepper Snapple (“DPS”). Soft drink companies produce concentrate and fountain syrup, and are responsible for marketing existing products and developing new products. Bottlers mix concentrate from soft drink companies and mix it with sweeteners and water to produce bottled and canned beverages. The American Beverage Association (“ABA”) is the industry association representing the non-alcoholic beverage industry. While the United States still has the highest per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks in the world, overall sales of full-sugar carbonated soft drinks have been declining in recent years. In response to this decline in sales, the soft drink industry has reinvigorated its efforts to engage the public via corporate social responsibility tactics designed to rehabilitate the image of its products. SOFT DRINK INDUSTRY CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY As large corporations, Coke, Pepsi and DPS, all undertake corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns. Corporate social responsibility generally encompasses a company’s activities and value statements with respect to philanthropy, community, workplace diversity, safety, human rights, and environment. There are various reasons why companies pursue CSR including: organizational values, reaction to threats to transaction costs, brand and competitive positioning, marketing, publicity, and innovation.[2] Concerns generally motivating the soft drink industry’s CSR efforts are evident in The Coca-Cola Company’s 2009 Annual Report: Consumers, public health officials and government officials are becoming increasingly concerned about the public health consequences associated with obesity, particularly among young people. In addition, some researchers, health advocates and dietary guidelines are encouraging consumers to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including those sweetened with HFCS or other nutritive sweeteners. Increasing public concern about these issues; possible new taxes and governmental regulations concerning the marketing, labeling or availability of our beverages; and negative publicity resulting from actual or threatened legal actions against us or other companies in our industry relating to the marketing, labeling or sale of sugar-sweetened beverages may reduce demand for our beverages, which could affect our profitability. When faced with such public concern, CSR efforts aim at “legitimizing a corporation’s activities and increasing corporate acceptance.”[3] Philanthropy and cause-marketing campaigns are key parts of the soft drink industry’s CSR efforts. Soft Drink Industry Philanthropy Coke and Pepsi both have corporate foundations that make grants to non-profit organizations and institutions. In 2008, the Coca-Cola Foundation Inc. made over $36 million in grants to organizations worldwide.[4] In 2009, the PepsiCo. Foundation, Inc. made $27.9 million in domestic grants.[5] In order to receive a grant, applicants must engage in work that meets the stated goals of the foundation, make an application and, once funded, follow the grant guidelines. The Coca-Cola Foundation and the PepsiCo. Foundation are required to publicly disclose grant recipients and total assets and expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service in order to maintain tax-exempt status. Soft Drink Industry Cause-Marketing Campaigns The use of cause-marketing campaigns is a growing trend facilitated by the rise of social networking online. Also referred to as “cause-related marketing,” cause-marketing traditionally has been defined as “a mutually beneficial collaboration between a corporation and a nonprofit in which their respective assets are combined to: create shareholder and social value; connect with a range of constituents (be they consumers, employees, or suppliers); and communicate the shared values of both organizations.”[6] Cause-marketing is distinct from corporate philanthropy because the corporate funds distributed “are not outright gifts to a nonprofit organization, so they are not treated as tax-deductible charitable contributions.”[7] The Pepsi Refresh Project is an example of a cause-marketing campaign. Pepsi-Refresh is a program whereby members of the public submit ideas with a funding request and vote on whether or not to fund the concept. In 2010, PepsiCo pledged $20 million in funds for the Refresh campaign. This amount is distinct from its corporate foundation giving made through the PepsiCo Foundation and, as a marketing expenditure, is not subject to the same public disclosures required of private foundations. The underlying goal of the Pepsi Refresh cause marketing campaign is to sell more Pepsi products. When asked if Pepsi Refresh has been successful, Melisa Tezanos, Communications Director of PepsiCo Americas Beverages, replied: Pepsi Refresh has been an overwhelming success. With over 2.8 billion (with a “B”!) earned media impressions, the project exceeded our internal benchmarks early in the year and we\’ve seen an improvement in key brand health metrics. When Millennials, an important cohort group for Pepsi, know about the Refresh Project their purchase intent goes up.[8] Ms. Tezanos clearly defines “success” not in terms of work done in the community funded by the program, but rather in terms of increasing the profile of Pepsi products and increasing sales amongst a key demographic. Social media is an important tool in cause-marketing campaigns as it facilitates the sharing of campaign materials that are embedded with product advertising and enables individuals to recruit other individuals to the campaign with relatively little effort. ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR ORGANIZATION’S HEALTH PROMOTION EFFORTS The practical reality is that soft drinks are now for sale in almost every venue, e.g. hospitals, universities, youth centers, and public buildings via vending machines and on-site retail establishments. In addition, corporate philanthropy by the soft drink industry and other private companies provides funding to a number of institutions and organizations that also have an interest in health promotion. While organizations should re-examine traditional arms-length business relationships and donor/recipient relationships, emerging soft drink industry corporate social responsibility efforts that use cause-marketing and public relations tactics require special attention. As part of a deliberate CSR strategy, these campaigns are embedded with product advertising, and often require participants to enlist other participants via social networking online. In addition, cause-marketing seeks to build an association between a company’s products and a trusted non-profit organization in order

Organizations that Care About Health Should Play No Part in the Soft Drink Industry’s Effort to Rehabilitate Its Public Image Read More »

State Laws Prevent Local Control Over Much More Than Just Happy Meal Toys

Prepared by Cara Wilking, J.D., Staff Attorney Santa Clara County, CA and the City and County of San Francisco, CA enacted ordinances requiring restaurants to meet nutrition criteria for children’s meals that use incentive items such as toys to drive child consumer demand. Neither law bans the use of toys or other incentive items, and both laws are designed to protect children from being baited into requesting unhealthy meals. The Governor of Arizona recently signed into law a provision barring local governments from putting any limits on the use of “consumer incentive items” in “retail food establishment marketing.” Florida currently has an even broader law on the Governor’s desk that would prevent local control over “all matters related to the nutritional content and marketing of foods offered” at public food and lodging establishments. As chronicled by the LA Times, both of these laws were carefully orchestrated by the restaurant industry in response to so-called “toy bans.” In point of fact, both laws go far beyond Happy Meal toys. In addition to protecting vulnerable child consumers, local governments regulate business conduct under their police power and zoning authority for a number of reasons including aesthetics, public health and public safety.  Arizona’s consumer incentives law essentially exempts food retailers from any local regulation that may have an impact on their business activities related to consumer incentives.  “Consumer incentives” are broadly defined to include:  “any licensed media character, toy, game, trading card, contest, point accumulation, club membership, admission ticket, token, code or password for digital access, coupon, voucher, incentive, crayons, coloring placements or other premium prize or consumer product” associated with a meal served by or acquired from a restaurant, food establishment or convenience store.  The legislation pending in Florida strips local control over “all matters related to the nutritional content and marketing of foods offered” at public food and lodging establishments. Many communities maintain the character of their communities through local aesthetic-related zoning laws. Imagine a small city with a historic downtown preserved by local zoning ordinances to protect the aesthetic character of the city. The community becomes concerned when a quick service restaurant starts putting large signs in its windows marketing a combo meal with a wrapper that one can scan with one’s phone to get points towards a future purchase.  A local authority goes out to talk to the franchise owner and ask him to remove the signs as they are not in keeping with the local zoning ordinance. The restaurant owner refuses to remove the signs.  Under the legislation enacted in Arizona and pending in Florida, the city would be powerless to challenge the practice. The as yet to be enacted Florida law, is so broad that it would prevent local governments from requiring additional nutritional disclosures to consumers about the calorie or sodium content of restaurant menu items.  In addition, some states delegate consumer protection authority to city and county attorneys. Such authority was used by a city attorney to make the first formal challenge to misleading “Immunity” claims on children’s cereal marketed at the height of the swine flu outbreak. The pending Florida law arguably would even exempt any food marketing by a restaurant or public lodging from local city or county attorney enforcement of deceptive and unfair business practices laws. A recent story by Reuters run in a number of news outlets analogized the current legislation to “cheeseburger” or “commonsense consumption” bills, also sponsored by the restaurant industry. Cheeseburger bills are on the books in over 20 states and bar personal injury claims against food makers and restaurants for injuries related to long term over-consumption of food. Many state cheeseburger bills, however, do not immunize food sellers from liability when they knowingly violate laws pertaining to marketing, distributing, advertising, labeling or sale of the goods such as state consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive, unfair or unconscionable trade practices. The very purpose of local ordinances tying child incentive items to nutritional quality is to protect children from the fundamentally unfair and deceptive use of toys to generate child requests for unhealthy foods. The Arizona and Florida laws contain no such exemption to allow local intervention to protect vulnerable consumers from deceptive and unfair food marketing. The law in Arizona and the pending legislation in Florida, strip local governments not only of the ability to protect children from harmful business conduct, their expansive nature jeopardizes local control over many other important business conduct issues.  These laws fundamentally change the rules of the game that local governments have depended on to maintain community character and to protect their communities.

State Laws Prevent Local Control Over Much More Than Just Happy Meal Toys Read More »

Journal of Public Health Policy Issues Call for Papers on Changing Food Industry Behavior

The Journal of Public Health Policy’s Co-Editor, Anthony Robbins, and Editorial Board Member Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition at NYU, Marion Nestle, have recently issued a Call for Papers for the Journal in an editorial entitled: Obesity as Collateral Damage: A call for papers on the Obesity Epidemic. We at PHAI encourage colleagues in the field of public health law to respond to this Call. The editorial concludes with this thought-provoking question: “Does the industry need to overfeed the population to remain profitable?”

Journal of Public Health Policy Issues Call for Papers on Changing Food Industry Behavior Read More »

Arkansas State Consumer Protection Profile

Which state consumer protection provisions could be used to protect consumers from junk food marketing? The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”) generally prohibits unconscionable, false and deceptive trade practices. Ark. Code §§ 4-88-107. It is unlawful to “[k]nowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods . . . .” Ark. Code §§ 4-88-107(1).  With respect to the sale or advertisement of any good, the ADTPA outlaws: “(1) The act, use, or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, or false pretense; or (2) [t]he concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission.” Ark. Code §§ 4-88-108. The ADTPA also makes it illegal  to “[k]nowingly tak[e] advantage of a consumer who is reasonably unable to protect his or her interest because of (A) [p]hysical infirmity, (B) [i]gnorance, (C) [i]lliteracy, (D) [i]nability to understand the language of the agreement,  or (E) [a] similar factor.” Ark. Code § 4-88-107(8). Does Arkansas law provide any special protections for child consumers? The ADTPA’s provision outlawing knowingly taking advantage of consumers who are reasonably unable to protect their own interests is a potentially powerful protection for child consumers. Children, by virtue of their age may be ignorant of the distinction between advertising and non-commercial content, they may be fully or partially illiterate, and unable to understand disclaimers and terms of contests and promotions. In addition, food marketing targeted at children typically is blatantly aimed at a certain age group making it easier for a plaintiff to establish that the defendant “knowingly” sought to take advantage of that group. Who can bring a lawsuit? The Attorney General, private consumers and classes of private consumers can file suit. What needs to be shown to make out a claim? A plaintiff must show (1) a false, unconscionable, or deceptive act, (2) actual damages  and (3) the act was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. Ark. Code § 4-88-113(f); Ashley County, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 666 (Ark. 2009).  A showing of intent to deceive is only required in limited cases. There is no definitive ruling under Arkansas law as whether reliance is a required element. What are the powers of the Attorney General to protect kids from junk food marketing? The Arkansas Attorney General may seek injunctive relief, Ark. Code § 4-88-104, investigate, Ark. Code §§ 4-88-105, 4-88-111, seek restitution for affected consumers, Ark. Code §§ 4-88-113, and petition a court for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, Ark. Code §§ 4-88-113. How does the law compensate consumers? A plaintiff may recover actual damages. Ark. Code § 4-88-113(f). Who is liable for attorney’s fees? A successful private plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees. Ark. Code § 4-88-113(f). DISLCAIMER: This legal summary is for informational purposes only. Please consult an attorney for legal advice. All information reflects legal research conducted in 2010. Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968).

Arkansas State Consumer Protection Profile Read More »

Arizona State Consumer Protection Profile

Download the Arizona State Consumer Protection Profile Which state consumer protection provisions could be used to protect consumers from junk food marketing? Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) prohibits “[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact . . . in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522. Under Arizona law, advertisement “includes the attempt by publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation, oral or written, to induce directly or indirectly any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any merchandise.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521. Does Arizona law provide any special protections for child consumers? The CFA has no specific provision protecting children as vulnerable consumers. The CFA’s definition of “advertisement” does include indirect and direct attempts to induce consumers to buy products. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521. Advertising aimed at children intended to generate “pester power” whereby children pester their parents into buying a product for them is a classic form of “indirect” food marketing. The inclusion of indirect marketing practices in the definition of “advertisement” may prove beneficial to consumers in cases where deceptive advertising is aimed at children but the parent is the ultimate purchaser. Who can bring a lawsuit? The Attorney General, private consumers and classes of private consumers can file suit under the CFA. What needs to be shown to make out a claim? A plaintiff must show that the defendant committed a deceptive or fraudulent act in connection with the sale of merchandise and that he or she was injured (suffered damages) as a result. Howell v. Midway Holdings, Inc., 362 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1164 (D. Ariz. 2005) (citing Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 136 Ariz. 338, 342 (Ariz. App. 1983)). The CFA requires a showing that the defendant acted with intent when the misconduct alleged involves concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522. For private actions, the Arizona courts have interpreted the CFA to require a basic showing of reliance on the deception by the consumer.  See, Peery v. Hansen, 585 P.2d 574, 577 (Ariz. App. 1978), and Siemer v. Associates First Capital Corp., 2001 WL 35948712 (D. Ariz. 2001).  Arizona courts have held, however, that a private plaintiff’s reliance need not be reasonable: “An injury occurs when a consumer relies, even unreasonably, on false or misrepresented information.” Kuehn v. Stanley, 91 P.3d 346, 351 (Ariz. App. Div., 2004). See also, Stratton v. American Medical Sec., Inc., 266 F.R.D. 340, 348 (D.Ariz., 2009). What are the powers of the Attorney General to protect kids from junk food marketing? The Arizona Attorney General has the power to investigate, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1524, issue subpoenas, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1526, conduct hearings, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1526, promulgate procedural rules, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1526, and seek injunctive relief and restitution for consumers, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1528,  and petition the court for up to $10,000 in civil penalties for willful violations of the CFA, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 44-1531(A).  The Attorney General may seek restitution for affected consumers. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1528(A)(2). How does the law compensate private plaintiffs? Private individuals are entitled to actual damages. Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 136 Ariz. 338, 342 (Ariz. App. 1983). In rare cases, a court may award punitive damages if the wrongdoer\’s conduct “is wanton or reckless, shows spite or ill will or where the conduct demonstrates a reckless indifference to the interests of others.” Dunlap v. Jimmy GMC of Tucson, Inc., 136 Ariz. 338, 343 (Ariz. App. 1983). Who is liable for attorney’s fees? The Attorney General is entitled to attorney’s fees for prevailing in an action brought under the CFA. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1534. Consumers are not entitled to attorney’s fees for actions under Arizona’s CFA. Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 521 P.2d 1119, 1123 (Ariz. 1974). DISLCAIMER: This legal summary is for informational purposes only. Please consult an attorney for legal advice. All information reflects legal research conducted in 2010. Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968).

Arizona State Consumer Protection Profile Read More »

Alaska State Consumer Protection Profile

Download full Alaska State Consumer Protection Profile Which state consumer protection provisions could be used to protect consumers from junk food marketing? Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“UTPCPA”) is modeled off of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”). In general it prohibits \”[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce . . . .\” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(a). Specific prohibitions that could apply to food marketing include trade practices that: Cause a “likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, or approval, or another person\’s affiliation, connection, or association with or certification of goods or services.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(3); Represent that “goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(4); Represent “that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(6); Engage in “any other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and which misleads, deceives or damages a buyer or a competitor in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(11); and Use or employ “deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or knowingly concealing, suppressing, or omitting a material fact with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services whether or not a person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(12). Does Alaska law provide any special protections for child consumers?Alaska’s UDTPCA has no specific provision protecting children as vulnerable consumers. Alaska courts give great weight to interpretations of the federal FTCA, Defense Research Institute (DRI), Unfair Trade Practices: A Compendium of State Law 20 (2005), and the Federal Trade Commission has recognized an exception from the general “reasonable person” standard for FTCA actions when advertising is aimed at a vulnerable or particularly susceptible audience. Federal Trade Commission, See Deception Policy Statement, appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 177 (1984), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm. This lesser standard should be applied when children, who by their very nature are particularly susceptible, are the target audience of food advertising. Who can bring a lawsuit?The Attorney General, private consumers and classes of private consumers can file suit. What needs to be shown to make out a claim? Plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case: “(1) that the defendant is engaged in trade or commerce; and (2) that in the conduct of trade or commerce, an unfair act or practice occurred.” Odom v. Fairbanks Memorial Hosp., 999 P.2d 123, 132 (Alaska 2000) (internal citations omitted). A plaintiff need not suffer actual injury. Rather, “all that is required is a showing that the acts and practices were capable of being interpreted in a misleading way.” Odom v. Fairbanks Memorial Hosp., 999 P.2d 123, 132 (Alaska 2000). In a private action, a plaintiff must suffer an “ascertainable loss of money or property.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a). A showing of reliance is not required. Odom v. Fairbanks Memorial Hosp., 999 P.2d 123, 132 (Alaska 2000). A showing of intent to deceive is only required when a claimant alleges that adefendant knowingly concealed, suppressed or omitted a material fact. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(12) (expressly requiring the actor to possess the requisite intent). What are the powers of the Attorney General to protect kids from junk food marketing? The Alaska Attorney General has the power to investigate and enforce the UDTPCA. The Attorney General may issue an injunction, Alaska Stat. § 45.50.501, and may petition the court for civil penalties of not less than $1,000 and not more than $25,000 per violation of an injunction or restraining order. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.551)(a). The Attorney General may pursue civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation of the UDTPCA. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.551(b). The Alaska Attorney General may also promulgate rules under the UDTPCA. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.491. Current rules, however, do not pertain to food marketing, but rather involve regulation of insurance, retail, and mortgage sales. How does the law compensate consumers?Under Alaska law, private plaintiffs may recover treble damages: plaintiffs may recover “for each unlawful act or practice three times the actual damages or $ 500, whichever is greater.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a). If, however, “a person receives an award of punitive damages [treble damages] . . . the court shall require that 50 percent of the award be deposited into the general fund of the state.” Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(i). Other relief is available at the discretion of the court. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(i). Private parties may seek injunctive relief. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.535. Who is liable for attorney’s fees?A successful plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.537(a). If the court finds the action was frivolous, the plaintiff will be liable for defendant’s attorney’s fees. Alaska Stat. § 45.50.537(b). DISLCAIMER: This legal summary is for informational purposes only. Please consult an attorney for legal advice. All information reflects legal research conducted in 2010. Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968).

Alaska State Consumer Protection Profile Read More »

Future of Obesity Litigation Panel Featuring PHAI’s Gottlieb and CSPI’s Gardner Airs and Is Available Online

On January 21, 2011, Northeastern University Law Journal sponsored its third annual symposium. This year, it was entitled “From Seed to Stomach,” and addressed legal and regulatory aspects of obesity and food safety. The symposium was recorded for broadcast by CSPAN, which aired the material from February 25-28, 2011. PHAI’s Executive Director, Mark Gottlieb, along with Stephen Gardner (Director of Litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest) appeared on a panel moderated by Stuart Rossman (Director of Litigation for the National Consumer Law Center) focused on the future of obesity litigation. The 80 minute panel is archived on CSPAN’s website. Topics addressed included the “cheeseburger bills,” the role of and use of arguments around choice and individual responsibility, consumer protection law, and the litigation against McDonald’s use of toy giveaways to sell Happy Meals. Research upon which Mr. Gottlieb’s presentation was based was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968) and by the National Institutes of Health (grant RO1 CA 87571).

Future of Obesity Litigation Panel Featuring PHAI’s Gottlieb and CSPI’s Gardner Airs and Is Available Online Read More »

Alabama State Consumer Protection Profile

Download the full Alabama State Consumer Protection Profile Which state consumer protection provisions could be used to protect kids from junk food marketing? The Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) prohibits deceptive acts including: The DTPA also contains a catch-all provision that prohibits “[e]ngaging in any other unconscionable, false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce.” Ala. Code § 8-19-5(27). When construing the DTPA courts are to give “due consideration and great weight” to interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to relevant portions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Ala. Code § 8-19-6. Does Alabama law have any special protections for child consumers? The DTPA does not have any special provisions dealing with child consumers. It does direct state courts to be guided by interpretations given by the FTC and the federal courts. The Federal Trade Commission has recognized an exception from the general “reasonable person” standard for FTCA actions when advertising is aimed at a vulnerable or particularly susceptible audience. Federal Trade Commission, See Deception Policy Statement, appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 177 (1984), http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-decept.htm. This lesser standard should be applied when children, who by their very nature are particularly susceptible, are the target audience of food advertising. Who can bring a lawsuit? The Attorney General, and individual consumers may file suit. Class actions brought by consumers are not permitted, but the Attorney General may file class actions in a representative capacity to recover actual damages on behalf of consumers. Ala. Code § 8-19-10(f). What needs to be shown to make out a claim? In order to make out a claim under the DTPA a plaintiff must allege that the defendant committed an act declared unlawful by the DTPA and that act caused the plaintiff monetary damages. Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a). While not all of the enumerated violations of the DTPA require that the unlawful act be committed knowingly, the statute contains a “defense” provision whereby a defendant may defend a claim “upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that such person did not knowingly commit any act or knowingly engage in any activity which constitutes a violation of any provision of this chapter.” Ala. Code § 8-19-13. Thus, plaintiffs should be able to establish that the act was committed knowingly. What are the powers of the Attorney General to protect kids from junk food marketing? The Attorney General may conduct investigations and enforce the DTPA by seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 for violations of an injunction and up to $2,000 for violations of the DTPA committed knowingly.  Ala. Code § 8-19-4(a); Ala. Code § 8-19-8; Ala. Code § 8-19-11. How does the law compensate consumers? Prevailing consumers shall be awarded actual damages or $100, whichever is greater or up to three times any actual damages in the court’s discretion. Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a). Who is liable for attorney’s fees? The court shall award prevailing consumers costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.  Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(3). The court also has the discretion to award a defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs upon a finding that an action was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Ala. Code. § 8-19-10(a)(3). DISLCAIMER: This legal summary is for informational purposes only. Please consult an attorney for legal advice. All information reflects legal research conducted in 2010. Supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research Program (#66968).

Alabama State Consumer Protection Profile Read More »

Unclear on calories: GMA & FMI’s front-of-package “Nutrition Keys” omit key calorie information

Today the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the packaged food and beverage industry’s trade association, and Food Marketing Institute (FMI), the food retailer’s trade association, revealed a front of package labeling scheme designed to “complement the Clear on Calories labeling system developed by the American Beverage Association,” the non-alcoholic beverage industry’s trade association. It seems GMA and FMI can’t even give the public straightforward information when launching a campaign intended to reduce consumer confusion. What’s Missing From This Picture? GMA and FMI’s joint Fact Sheet states : “Under the Nutrition Keys program, participating food and beverage companies will place an icon on the front of their products that displays calories, saturated fat, sodium and sugar per serving. The icon will also tell consumers how each serving of a product contributes to their overall diet based on recommended daily nutrition intake as established by the federal government’s U.S. Dietary Guidelines, and expressed as percent of daily value.” The examples used by GMA/FMI provide a percentage of daily values for fat, sodium and nutrients but DOT NOT provide a percentage that corresponds to the percentage of a 2,000 calorie per day diet (sugar is not labeled because there is no established percent daily value for sugars at present). None of the graphic examples used by GMA/FMI or the American Beverage Association include a bubble for the percentage of an average 2,000 calorie per day intake. When it Comes to Calories, “Nutrition Keys” Differs from the UK GDA System The GMA/FMI Fact Sheet states “Nutrition Keys is in use voluntarily in the United Kingdom, where it enjoys wide consumer acceptance. In the U.K., 83% of consumers are aware of the icon, and 63% report that they use the information summary when they make decisions at the point of purchase.” While the GMA/FMI does not provide an example of the precise labeling system referenced, a similar U.K. system (the GDA system) contains a % of average daily calories in the calorie bubble. The GMA/FMI differs materially from the U.K. scheme–calories are not put into the context of a % of average daily calorie intake. Nothing New & A Step Backward GMA and FMI’s joint Press Release describes the initiative as “the most significant modernization of food labels since the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. The scheme, however, appears to be the same scheme employed by General Mills and Kellogg’s on their cereal products for the last several years. Those schemes, at least initially, contained a disclosure of the % of average daily calorie intake–the GMA/FMI scheme does not.

Unclear on calories: GMA & FMI’s front-of-package “Nutrition Keys” omit key calorie information Read More »