"ambiguity" is taking hold in consumer protection class actions, but it's not the Lanham Act concept

Ramirez v. S. Martinelli & Co., 2026 WL 272621, No. 25-cv-07569-NC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026)

Martinelli’s apple juice products’ front labels state either “Premium 100% Juice Not From Concentrate” or “100% Juice From U.S. Grown Fresh Apples.” The products now contain ascorbic acid, a preservative, listed in the ingredients on the products’ back labels. Martinelli allegedly intentionally designed the products’ labeling so they appear to contain only juice because consumers are willing to pay more for a product without additives, and charges roughly fifty percent more than comparators. FDA and state law allegedly requires “with added preservatives” on the front label.

Plaintiffs brought NY and California statutory claims, which the court declined to dismiss.

The court found deception plausible: “Premium 100% Juice Not From Concentrate” and “100% Juice from U.S. Grown Fresh Apples” were “likely to deceive a reasonable consumer into believing that the products contain only apple juice, without other ingredients. That is, reasonable consumers could see the front label as making an unambiguous representation which would not require further information.”

Under consumer protection precedents, “[j]ust because the labels are subject to two reasonable interpretations—that the product is 100% juice, or that the juice is 100% from fresh apples/not from concentrate—does not make it ambiguous” such that a reasonable consumer is required to consult the back label.  Instead, the labels could be “unambiguously deceptive to an ordinary consumer, such that the consumer would feel no need to look at the back label.” 

[I think it’s bad to have two different definitions of “unambiguous,” one for competitors and one for consumers, applied to the same “false advertising” concept, especially since none of the courts I’ve seen have acknowledged this difference or given a theoretical justification therefor. These conflicting definitions are inevitably going to cause legal confusion. “Plausibly sufficient to convey a specific false message, without the consumer needing to check for more information” might be better than “unambiguous” for the consumer protection class action context; it much better captures the concept although it is of course longer.]

Nor did the claims rest solely on a violation of federal law: the front labels were plausibly misleading and the plaintiffs alleged reliance and resulting injury.

The court did kick out a punitive damages request, but not warranty/unjust enrichment claims or a request for injunctive relief.