When Promoting “Real Food” And “Real Nutrition,” Is Real Substantiation Required? – Advertising, Marketing & Branding
GA
Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance (GALA)
With firms representing more than 90 countries, each GALA member has the local expertise and experience in advertising, marketing and promotion law that will help your campaign achieve its objectives, and navigate the legal minefield successfully. GALA is a uniquely sensitive global resource whose members maintain frequent contact with each other to maximize the effectiveness of their collaborative efforts for their shared clients. GALA provides the premier worldwide resource to advertisers and agencies seeking solutions to problems involving the complex legal issues affecting today’s marketplace.
On the packaging for Balance of Nature dietary supplements, it says, “Real Food. Real Science. Real Nutrition.” A consumer sued, alleging that these statements are false and misleading…
United States
Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On the packaging for Balance of Nature dietary supplements, it
says, “Real Food. Real Science. Real Nutrition.” A
consumer sued, alleging that these statements are false and
misleading, because they would lead consumers to believe that
Balance of Nature supplements – which are made from
freeze-dried fruits and vegetables that are pulverized into a power
and then put into a capsule – provide a nutritionally
meaningful substitute for eating actual fruits and vegetables that
that the company has serious scientific studies to back this
up.
Balance of Nature moved to dismiss the lawsuit and a federal
district court in Illinois dismissed the case. Here’s why.
The plaintiff sued for false advertising under Illinois law. The
core issue here, ultimately, was whether Balance of Nature’s
statements were “likely to deceive reasonable consumers.”
Balance of Nature argued that because its “real”
statements are factually true, they are not likely to mislead
reasonable consumers. The court agreed, finding that the
plaintiff’s arguments “hinge on his own unreasonable gloss
on the labels.”
Regarding “Real Food” and “Real Nutrition,”
the court didn’t agree with the plaintiff that these statements
communicated information about the quantity of nutritional content
contained in the supplements. The court wrote, “these words
simply do not represent a claim about quantity.” Noting that
these statements are literally true, the court just didn’t
think that consumers would take away a misleading message. The
court explained, “The label does not suggest that the product
provides a certain amount of real food or real nutrition.”
Regarding “Real Science,” the court also didn’t
think that this statement communicated anything specific about the
type of science behind the company’s “real” claims.
Essentially, the court found here that since “Real Food”
and “Real Nutrition” didn’t communicate anything
specific, there was no reason to believe that “Real
Science” was conveying any concrete information about the
level of scientific evidence supporting the company’s
claims.
Spivey v. EVIG, 2025 WL 1638453 (N.D. Ill. 2025).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link
