Holk v. Snapple
In a series of cases, plaintiffs have argued that marketing foods and beverages as "all natural" when they contain high fructose corn syrup, is false and misleading under state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws. Some of the cases also alleged that labeling and advertising beverages by using the names and images of fruits that are not contained in the products also violated these state laws. In several cases, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that these claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations. We appeared as co-counsel in two of these cases to oppose the preemption motion. In Holk v Snapple, we filed an amicus brief on the same issue in the court of appeals. In each case, the court agreed with our position and held that the claims were not preempted.
Lockwood v ConAgra (Jan. 2009)
Hitt v. AriZona Beverage Corp. (2008)
Holk v Snapple (Dec. 2008)