In an initial decision, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell upheld a Federal Trade Commission complaint, and ruled that POM Wonderful LLC, its sister corporation Roll Global LLC, and principals Stewart Resnick, Lynda Resnick, and Matthew Tupper violated federal law by making deceptive claims in some ads that their POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice and POMx supplements (POM products) would treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction. POM Wonderful Pomegranate Juice is widely available at grocery stores nationwide. POMx pills and liquid extract are sold via direct mail.
An order Chappell issued with the Initial Decision would bar POM from making any representation about the “health benefits, performance, or efficacy” of POM products or any other food, drug, or dietary supplement – unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence…to substantiate that the representation is true.” It also would bar them from representing that any such product “is effective in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of any disease,” including treating, preventing, or reducing the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, or erectile dysfunction – unless the representation is not misleading, and the POM respondents possess “competent and reliable scientific evidence…to substantiate that the representation is true.”
According to Judge Chappell’s decision:
The POM respondents’ violations of federal advertising law were serious because their claims “pertained to serious diseases and dysfunction of the body, including cancer,” and because consumers were unable to evaluate whether the claims were true or supported by the clinical studies cited in the ads.
The evidence demonstrated that reasonable consumers would interpret the POM respondents’ advertisements as claiming that drinking eight ounces of POM Juice daily, taking one POMx pill daily, and/or taking one teaspoon of POMx
Liquid daily treats, prevents, or reduces the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and/or erectile dysfunction, and/or is clinically proven to do so.
Expert testimony demonstrated that there was insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to support claims that POM products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, or erectile dysfunction, or are clinically proven to do so.
While Judge Chappell ruled that some of the POM respondents’ ads made the unsubstantiated claims, he found that with regard to some of their other ads, “the preponderance of the evidence fails to demonstrate that such advertisements would reasonably be interpreted by consumers as containing such claims.”
The ads in question appeared in national publications such as Parade, Fitness, The New York Times, and Prevention magazines; on Internet sites such as pomtruth.com, pomwonderful.com, and pompills.com; on bus stops and billboards; in newsletters to customers; and on tags attached to the product.
