Mott’s

October 2014: Though a federal judge granted part of Mott’s motion for summary judgment and trimmed the complaint, plaintiffs have gotten the green light to proceed on their unlawful labeling allegations (i.e., that Mott’s unlawfully labels its 100% Apple Juice as having “No Sugar Added” and fails to indicate that it is not “low calorie” or “calorie reduced”). To read the full decision, click here.

February 2014: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Mott’s that focuses exclusively on Mott’s 100% Apple Juice and eliminates the claims regarding the company’s applesauce products. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the company’s “No Sugar Added” labeling of the product is a misrepresentation that violates various California state laws.

January 2014: A federal judge dismissed some of the claims in the class-action lawsuit. Among other things, the judge dismissed the claim that Mott’s mislabels its applesauce products with the term “No Sugar Added” because the plaintiffs did not show that the company added concentrated fruit juice in order to increase the sugar content or that other similar products normally contain added sugar. Similarly, the judge dismissed the claim that Motts mislabels its applesauce products as “reduced calorie” because the plaintiffs did not show that similar products had significantly more calories. Plaintiffs were given permission to amend their complaint by February 24, 2014.

June/July 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Mott’s LLP and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. in June 2013 (and was removed to federal court in July 2013) for allegedly mislabeling food and beverage products. Specifically, plaintiffs claim the defendants mislabeled (under California and federal regulations) certain products, including Mott’s 100% Apple Juice, as “No Sugar Added” when the products contain concentrated fruit juice. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to indicate that these products are not “low calorie” or “calorie reduced,” which is required by law for such high calorie products. (Rahman et al. v. Mott’s L.L.P., et al., Case No. 13-cv-03482, N.D. Cal.)