The Nutella Class Action Lawsuit and Other False Advertising Claims

^{Image courtesy of janineomg via Flickr.}

A California woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Nutella alleging false advertising. Athena Hohenberg calls Nutella's ads "misleading," because they insinuate that the product is "healthy," when in fact it's chock full of sugar and fat.

False advertising is a hot-button issue in the U.S., where there's much debate about how much responsibility corporations have to use advertising based in fact.

Here are five other products that have come under fire for false advertising claims.

1. Taco Bell's Beef or Something Like It
   
   Amy recently posted about the Taco Bell lawsuit which claimed that the company's "beef" is comprised mostly of fillers and binders. The suit alleged that the food is composed of only 35% beef. Taco Bell responded by calling the lawsuit "bogus," and rebutting that what they use is 88% real beef, thank you very much. The latest on this one was in mid-February, when Taco Bell gave away free tacos to Facebook fans, in an apparent effort to win back customers.


2. VitaminWater: For Reasonable Consumers Only
   
   In 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued Coca-Cola, the makers of VitaminWater, for "deceptive health claims." The suit cited VitaminWater's labels, which feature words like "antioxidants" and "defense," as well as billboards touting slogans such as "Flu shots are so last year."
   
   It's pretty tough to argue against such accusations, but lawyers for Coca-Cola managed to do it, in the craziest way possible. They argued that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking VitaminWater was a healthy beverage." In other words: "true, we market it as a healthy beverage, but you are unreasonable if you believe us." Thankfully, the Court isn't buying that argument.


3. Dannon Yogurts Affect Your Digestive Tract, Technically
   
   In 2010, Dannon settled a class action lawsuit alleging deceptive health claims (which seems to be our theme of the hour). The company marketed its Activia and DanActive lines as "scientifically proven" to aid in digestion. Unsurprisingly, they couldn't support these claims. A judge ordered them to pay $45 million to customers who purchased either yogurt, and to reword the products' health claims. Where both products used to claim "a positive effect on your digestive tract's immune system," they now read "interacts with your digestive tract's immune system." Yes, this hilariously general statement is the closest they have to a real health claim. Other contenders were "goes into your stomach" and "can be eaten by mouth."


4. Pizza Hut v. Papa John
   
   In 1997, Pizza Hut sued Papa John's over an ad campaign that called Papa John's pizza "better" than Pizza Hut's. In a series of ads that some might call "impressively lazy," the company claimed that Papa John's ingredients were fresher than Pizza Hut's, and thus the final product was "better."
   
   The court concluded that "'fresher ingredients' do not necessarily account for a 'better' pizza," ruling in favor of the slighted Pizza Hut. When Papa John's appealed the decision, the court upheld its ruling on the company's "misleading advertising" claims, but ruled that Pizza Hut had failed to prove that the ads had a "material effect on consumers' purchasing decisions."


5. Airborne v. Reputable Research Studies
   
   Airborne, an herbal supplement, was marketed for years as a way to prevent the common cold. That changed in 2008, when the company settled a suit over false health claims. As it turns out, the company could not back up any of their medical claims. So what were the claims based on? Only the most scientifically sound study possible, a two-person research project that was funded by Airborne.
   
   Airborne agreed to pay $23.3 million to consumers who purchased the product, if they could furnish a receipt. What, you don't save receipts for every supplement you buy at a drugstore?

Do you think companies have a responsibility to advertise truthfully, or is the onus on consumers to find the facts behind the products they buy?