Snapple has won another round in the longstanding battle over whether it is "All Natural" but that issue itself remains undecided. The company was granted summary judgment in the Southern District of New York case blogged about here. Plaintiffs had alleged that the use of high fructose corn syrup made Snapple's use of "All Natural" misleading (Snapple has since switched to sugar.) The judge granted summary judgment finding that plaintiffs have failed to show injury because they were unable to offer any evidence showing that they paid a premium for the "All Natural" label.
In addition to finding that plaintiffs did not establish the actual price they paid for the product nor amount of any premium paid, the judge held that plaintiffs did not offer evidence as to the price of competing beverages that did not claim to be "All Natural." One plaintiff testified that he thought Snapple was more expensive at the time but he hadn't actually looked at prices of comparable products. Another could only guess at the price he paid for other products. In short, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations had laid an egg.
