Burnett-Joseph v. McGrath

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the 2 survey could not render the claim plausible, because it failed to address 3 consumers’ reasonable understandings about soft drinks labeled “diet”
• holding that, in context, the use of the word diet is understood as a relative claim about that soft drink’s caloric amount compared to a regular soft drinks
• concluding that, where there is a “prevalent 6 understanding of [a] term,” “[j]ust because some consumers may unreasonably interpret the term 7 differently does not render the use of [the term] . . . false or deceptive”
• concluding a “survey d[id] not shift the prevailing reasonable understanding” of an advertising claim
• affirming district 14 court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s mislabeling claims for plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently allege that 15 reasonable consumers would be deceived by defendant’s representations
• affirming a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would believe a soda labelled “diet” meant the soda would help the customer lose weight

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).