A federal judge in Los Angeles set a January trial date for the civil suit against Johnson & Johnson regarding alleged false advertising of the artificial sweetener, Splenda. Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Dale S. Fischer denied Johnson & Johnson's request for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' claims should be heard by a jury and reviewed on the merits. Plaintiffs consist of thousands of sugar farmers across the nation, joined together as the Washington-based Sugar Association.
Central to the plaintiffs’ claims is the alleged deceptive nature of Splenda’s advertising. Splenda, a chemically-based sweetener, used taglines such as “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” and “Good for the whole family.” Plaintiffs argue that the advertising led consumers to believe that Splenda, which is made by inserting chlorine atoms onto sugar molecules, is actually an all-natural product.
McNeil Nutritionals, the company that makes Splenda, has faced similar issues with its advertising of Splenda in the past, including findings of deceptive advertising in France, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, McNeil settled a prior Lanham Act case in the U.S. after a one month trial and just before the jury announced its verdict. In that particular case, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, Merisant (the maker of Equal sweetener) alleged that McNeil used slogans that portrayed Splenda as a healthier and more natural product than other artificial sweeteners such as Equal.
McNeil, of whom Johnson & Johnson is the parent company says that its marketing slogans “are true and in no way state or imply that Splenda contains actual sugar or is natural.” On its website, Splenda’s current tagline reads: “Splenda. It’s made from sugar. It tastes like sugar. But it’s not sugar.” Stay tuned for more refined details as the granular facts of the case begin to crystallize....
