It's long been successful marketing strategy in bevs: latch onto trendy ingredient like acai or pomegranate, incorporate it into brand in minute quantities that don't overly strain taste profile or production budget, then ride wave of consumer excitement to sales growth. But experts say today's Supreme Court ruling allowing POM Wonderful to proceed with suit vs Minute Maid may well prompt flurry of reformulations or repositionings among bev marketers who fear being more easily challenged by rivals whose products contain more meaningful ingredient content.

This was case, recall, where POM targeted minute amount of pomegranate (0.3%) in brisk-selling offering from Minute Maid labeled as "Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices." High court's 8-0 ruling (Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself) had centered on technical issue of whether false advertising suits by rival under Lanham Act are superseded by FDA's jurisdiction over misbranding, as defendant Coca-Cola had argued. By siding with POM, justices remanded case back to trial at lower court. In his opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Coke "practices that allegedly mislead and trick consumers, all to the injury of competitors." He'd signaled that view during oral arguments, calling Minute Maid label "misleading" and "deceptive" and readily acknowledging that he himself had been duped as a consumer. "Don't make me feel bad," he said at time, "because I thought that this was pomegranate juice."

Dan Silverman, an LA-based partner at Venable LLP who'd worked on suit in previous role as in-house counsel for POM Wonderful, told BBI that ruling "should be a wakeup call to manufacturers" who should now regard FDA labeling regs as a "floor but not a ceiling." Narrow compliance with regs no assurance that products aren't still deceptive to consumers. That said, Silverman doesn't expect a flood of labeling suits under Lanham Act, which more commonly underpins suits brought over claims. But outcome affirms that FDA, with priority on safety, is not final word on labeling. He believes that consumer class action suit filed vs KO over same issue had been stayed pending appeal, but now may get back on calendar.

"Food and beverage companies should really start rethinking their labels at this point, to the extent that they are relying on the current guidelines that allow for the kind of language that Coca-Cola has been employing," lawyer David Ter Molen, author of Food Identity Blog, told USA Today.

POM of course has been uncommonly litigious in defending its 100%-pom-juice core offerings against rivals with minimal pom content, going after Coke/Minute Maid, Tropicana, Ocean Spray and Welch's in suits. In other 3 cases, lower-court judges sided with Coke, generally concluding that while positioning of those brands may have been misleading, POM had failed to prove that it actually suffered damages. Class action suits filed on those may also get second wind now, Silverman believes.

Center for Science for Public Interest, which filed amicus brief in this case, termed outcome "clear and unequivocal victory for consumers as well as competitors. The Court recognized that companies don't have a safe haven from being sued for deception just by complying with FDA's minimal regulations." Watchdog group said ruling confirms its own stance that years of lax enforcement by FDA have led to marketplace that produces more confusion than clarity - as it's contended in suits it's brought over "fruit snacks" with tiny amount of fruit, "made with whole grain" breads with little or no whole grains, and CSDs positioned as healthy bevs thanks to addition of antioxidants and the like. "In allowing Lanham Act suits to go forward, the Court has given its blessing to a valuable tool for companies to patrol their competitors' products for just this kind of commonplace deception," it said. While POM obviously savoring Supreme Court win, co is still wrangling with FTC "that barred it from making certain health claims" in its own ads, noted NBC News.