The Vitaminwater lawsuit was a consumer class action, filed in 2009 against Coca-Cola, that accused the company of marketing Vitaminwater as a healthy drink while it contained roughly as much sugar as a can of Coke. After seven years of litigation, the case ended in a court-approved settlement in April 2016 that required labeling changes but paid consumers nothing.1CSPI. Vitaminwater Settlement Approved by Court
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The case, Ackerman v. The Coca-Cola Company and Energy Brands Inc., was filed on January 21, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Six named plaintiffs from New York and California brought the suit alongside the Center for Science in the Public Interest, whose attorneys served as co-lead counsel.2GovInfo. Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Company, CV-09-0395
The complaint focused on the gap between the drink’s marketing and its contents. A 20-ounce bottle held about 33 grams of sugar, roughly eight teaspoons, along with citric acid and crystalline fructose.3Bloomberg. Drink Deception and the Legal War on Vitaminwater Labels carried phrases like “vitamins + water = all you need” and “vitamins + water = what’s in your hand.” Individual flavors bore names like “defense,” “rescue,” and “endurance,” and made claims about reducing the risk of eye disease, promoting joint health, and supporting “optimal immune function.”4CSPI. Vitaminwater Complaint Fruit-forward names like “kiwi-strawberry” and “acai-blueberry-pomegranate” appeared on drinks that contained less than one percent actual juice.5CBS News. Vitaminwater Lawsuit Over Health Claims to Proceed as Class Action
Coca-Cola’s “No Reasonable Consumer” Defense
Coca-Cola moved to dismiss in mid-2009 with an argument that drew widespread attention. Its attorneys told the court that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.”3Bloomberg. Drink Deception and the Legal War on Vitaminwater The company was, in effect, telling the court that the health claims on its own labels were not credible enough to fool anyone.
Stephen Gardner of CSPI called the position “utter nonsense,” saying that under Coca-Cola’s logic “the first thing any consumer must do with any product is to assume the claims on the front of the label are a pack of lies and scrutinize the fine print on the back to learn what’s actually in the product.”3Bloomberg. Drink Deception and the Legal War on Vitaminwater One outlet labeled the argument “exhibit 1 for corporate chutzpah,”6MinnPost. Coca-Cola’s Argument in Vitaminwater Lawsuit: Exhibit 1 for Corporate Chutzpah and Stephen Colbert mocked the defense on The Colbert Report in January 2013.7Mother Jones. Coca-Cola Vitamin Water Obesity
What the Court Found
On July 21, 2010, Judge John Gleeson denied Coca-Cola’s motion to dismiss in a 55-page opinion, allowing nine of the twelve claims to proceed. Three claims were dismissed without prejudice.8Food Safety News. Case Against Vitamin Water to Proceed
The judge found that use of the word “healthy” on Vitaminwater labels violated FDA rules. Under the agency’s 1994 “jelly bean rule,” foods low in fat, cholesterol, and sodium cannot be labeled “healthy” unless they contain at least 10 percent of certain nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, protein, fiber, or iron.8Food Safety News. Case Against Vitamin Water to Proceed Gleeson also wrote that the product’s name and labeling had “the potential to reinforce a consumer’s mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water,” and that the brand name itself failed to identify sugar as a key ingredient.9CBS News. Coke’s Motion to Drop Vitaminwater Suit Denied
Why Consumers Got No Money
The path to a payout closed on July 18, 2013, when Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy recommended denying class certification for monetary damages while granting it for injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs did not object to the denial of damages certification; Coca-Cola’s objection to injunctive certification was overruled.10CSPI. Vitaminwater Settlement Agreement From that point, the case was heading toward label changes, not checks.
The Settlement
Judge Levy approved the settlement on April 7, 2016, overruling two objections. The terms were entirely injunctive.1CSPI. Vitaminwater Settlement Approved by Court The class covered consumers in California and New York who had bought Vitaminwater.11CSPI. Coca-Cola Vitaminwater
Coca-Cola agreed to stop using a set of health-related marketing phrases on Vitaminwater labels, including “vitamins + water = what’s in your hand,” “vitamins + water = all you need,” and “this combination of zinc and fortifying vitamins can … keep you healthy as a horse,” along with claims about reducing the risk of eye disease, promoting joint health, and supporting relaxation.12Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Settlement Results in Label Changes
The company also had to add front-of-label disclosures. Packaging was required to state conspicuously that the product contained “sweeteners” and “120 calories,”11CSPI. Coca-Cola Vitaminwater with the phrase “with sweeteners” appearing in two locations on each label. Coca-Cola admitted no liability, and reporting at the time indicated the company was implementing the changes.12Food Dive. Coca-Cola’s Vitaminwater Settlement Results in Label Changes
The consumer-advocacy group Truth in Advertising filed an amicus brief opposing the deal in January 2016 and summarized the result this way: “Settlement scorecard: Lawyers, a cool million; consumers, nothing.”13Truth in Advertising. Marketing of Vitaminwater
The Separate Settlement in the Copycat Cases
The Ackerman case is often confused with a separate track of litigation. Starting in late 2010, consumers filed similar class actions in Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which were consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.14Food Navigator-USA. Coca-Cola to Settle Some Vitaminwater Deceptive Advertising Lawsuits Coca-Cola settled those cases separately in August 2014, and Federal Judge Michael Barrett in the Southern District of Ohio gave final approval on March 30, 2015.15Truth in Advertising. TINA.org Objects to Unhealthy Vitaminwater Settlement
That earlier deal paid $1.2 million to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and nothing to consumers.15Truth in Advertising. TINA.org Objects to Unhealthy Vitaminwater Settlement It required Coca-Cola to display calorie counts on the front of Vitaminwater packaging and to drop phrases including “vitamins + water = all you need” and “made for the center for responsible hydration.”14Food Navigator-USA. Coca-Cola to Settle Some Vitaminwater Deceptive Advertising Lawsuits CSPI objected, arguing the settlement provided consumers nothing they hadn’t already gained through other means.16BeverageDaily. A Bunch of Lawyers Get a $1M Payday! CSPI Savages Vitaminwater Deal An appeal was dismissed in June 2015.
Between the two deals, Coca-Cola came out of seven years of litigation with new front-of-label sugar and calorie disclosures on Vitaminwater, restrictions on the health claims it could make, and no admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who had bought the drink got no refund from either settlement.