Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Dr Betty Martini, MPWHI.com, Toxic Embalacide, FDA Fatal Drugs Allowed, Globalist Population Reduction Agenda, Reduce Life Span and Fertility, Need for Pro Se Legal Actions, How to Win in Court, Drop Down NutriMedical.com, Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Take Action vs. Board Members and Suppliers of Corps and Political Hacks, Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,NutriMedical Report Show,
There were six class action suits against Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper/Snapple for deception, calling their pop “diet” when in fact they knew it would make people gain weight. 5 out of 6 were dismissed, 5 on appeal, 2 to be heard. We need to attack! It should be an open and shut case.
Here is an article I wrote for the National Health Federation you can post if you like on the issue: https://thenhf.co.uk/six-class-action-lawsuits-filed-against-aspartame/
However, as you see below they keep dismissing them. This came in this morning. I suspect the pop companies get to the judges. There are two left on appeal. In the beginning the National Soft Drink Assoc protested on using aspartame because it made you crave carbohydrates so you gain weight – so you ended up with a diet product making you fat. Here it is in the NSDA protest from the congressional record. You’ll see all their objections. https://rense.com/general96/pepsi.htm You’ll notice they used Dr. Wurtman’s affidavit at MIT to prove aspartame makes you gain weight.
Now this article below this AM: Regards, Betty
‘
Subject: Law 360: 2nd Circ. Cans Diet Coke Drinkers’ False Ad Suit
2nd Circ. Cans Diet Coke Drinkers’ False Ad Suit
By Mike Curley
Law360 (June 27, 2019, 5:10 PM EDT) — The third time was not the charm for diet soda drinkers Thursday when the Second Circuit rejected an appeal in a suit claiming the “diet” labeling on Diet Coke was misleading, the third such suit against diet soda makers the panel has heard and dismissed since March.
In a published opinion $B!H(Bconsistent with the rulings of every court that has addressed this issue,$B!I(B the panel affirmed the dismissal of Evan Geffner and Ivan Babsin$B!G(Bs suit against The Coca-Cola Co., finding that the word $B!H(Bdiet$B!I(B when applied to soft drinks only refers to caloric content and not to any promise it will help with weight loss or maintenance.
As the complaint concedes that Diet Coke has fewer calories than Coca-Cola, the claims fall flat, the panel wrote, noting that this is the third case in the last few months where the Second Circuit rejected almost identical claims, brought by clients of the same attorneys.
In March, the Second Circuit rejected similar claims about the labeling of Diet Pepsi, and in April, a suit over Diet Dr Pepper was likewise dismissed.
Geffner and Babsin alleged in October 2017 that Diet Coke is made with the noncaloric sweetener aspartame, which they said contributes to weight gain and an increased risk of metabolic disease, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The product$B!G(Bs representation that it is diet is therefore misleading, since the soda won$B!G(Bt help with weight loss or management, the complaint said.
In March 2018, Coca-Cola responded, saying it has never advertised that Diet Coke would help with weight loss or weight management.
In October, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton found that Geffner and Babsin were unable to state their claim that consumers were misled into thinking Diet Coke would help them lose weight based on the labeling and advertising, saying it$B!G(Bs not plausible for reasonable consumers to believe that the soft drink would in itself lead to weight loss.
The Second Circuit agreed with Judge Stanton, rejecting any claims based on Coca-Cola$B!G(Bs advertising, saying most of what Geffner and Babsin point to is meaningless $B!H(Bpuffery.$B!I(B
$B!H(BThe use of physically fit and attractive models using and enjoying advertised products is so ubiquitous that it cannot be reasonably understood to convey any specific meaning at all,$B!I(B the panel wrote.
As to the term $B!H(Bdiet$B!I(B itself, the panel affirmed that, in the context of soft drinks, it refers to calorie content, and that it has a relative, not absolute meaning, such that in order to meet federal advertising standards, a diet soft drink need only have fewer calories than its non-diet version, a fact that Geffner and Babsin did nod dispute.
Jack Fitzgerald of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, representing the consumers, said that while they don$B!G(Bt understand why the Second Circuit ruled the way it did, they intend to $B!H(Bgrin and bear it$B!I(B and continue with their claims in the Ninth Circuit, such as a suit against Dr Pepper.
$B!H(BI still wouldn$B!G(Bt drink the stuff,$B!I(B he told Law360.
Representatives for Coca-Cola could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The consumers are represented by Derek T. Smith and Abraham Z. Melamed of the Derek Smith Law Group PLLC, Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M. Flynn and Melanie Persinger of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC, and Andrew Sacks and John Weston of Sacks Weston Diamond LLC.
Coca-Cola is represented by Jane Metcalf, Steven A. Zalesin, Michael Sochynsky and Catherine A. Williams of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.
The case is Geffner v. The Coca-Cola Co., case number 18$B!>(B3548, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
–Additional reporting by Ryan Boysen, Bonnie Eslinger and Rachel Graf. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.
