Nestle’s False Ad Suit Faces Tough Opposition from Consumers

Nestles False Ad Suit

In a fiery rebuttal against Nestle Waters North America Inc.’s attempt to dismiss claims of deceptive marketing surrounding its Poland Spring brand water, a proposed class of bottled water drinkers has launched a relentless assault, asserting that Nestle’s efforts to secure an early win “strains or ignores a mountain of evidence.”

Nestle’s False Ad Suit : Contention Over Early Win Bid

Nestle’s bid for an early win against the claims of 12 consumers, who argue they were misled by Poland Spring labels, was fiercely contested in a Monday memorandum. The consumers emphasized that factual disputes persist, challenging Nestle’s attempt to redefine their claims and revisit previously adjudicated issues.

Misinterpretation Allegations

Central to Nestle’s motion is the assertion that Poland Spring meets the FDA’s “standard of identity” for spring water. However, consumers argue that Nestle misinterprets this standard and distorts the essence of their claim, contending that consumers believe they are purchasing genuine spring water, not merely a product meeting regulatory technicalities.

Complex Regulatory Landscape

The consumers further assert that Nestle’s interpretation would set a dangerous precedent, allowing companies to deceive consumers with impunity under the guise of regulatory compliance. They emphasize that the issue extends beyond technical standards, as Nestle’s product fails to meet fundamental criteria such as sourcing from underground springs.

Nestle’s False Ad Suit : Questionable Sourcing Practices

Highlighting Nestle’s sourcing practices, the consumers reveal that Poland Spring is primarily drawn from well sites shared with municipal water supplies, contradicting consumers’ expectations of purchasing premium spring water. This revelation underscores allegations of overpricing and consumer deception.

Legal Maneuvering

Nestle’s bid also seeks to revisit previously adjudicated issues, challenging the consumers’ ability to pursue claims under multiple states’ laws. While the court previously ruled against Nestle on this matter, the consumers allege the company persists in its attempts to evade accountability.

Awaiting Court’s Decision

As the court deliberates Nestle’s summary judgment motion, the consumers’ motion for class certification remains pending. However, Nestle’s representatives have remained tight-lipped in response to inquiries, while counsel for the consumers declined to offer any comments.

Nestle’s False Ad Suit : Legal Representation

The consumers and the proposed class are represented by a team of seasoned attorneys, including Steven G. Sklaver, Oleg Elkhunovich, Bryan Caforio, Jesse-Justin Cuevas, Max Straus, Steven Williams, and Alexander H. Schmidt.