Florida sugar company can’t shake false advertising claims

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) —  A federal judge on Thursday refused to toss all claims against a sugar company accused in a putative class action of advertising its products as eco-friendly while giving the impression of environmentally beneficial farming practices that are actually harmful to Florida’s ecosystems.

In a mixed-bag ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen said the Florida Crystals Corporation used statements such as “Farming to Help Save the Planet” and “our farms help fight climate change & build healthy soil” on its products and “the labeling, packaging and marketing of the products ‘lead reasonable consumers, like plaintiff, to believe that the products will — through supporting Florida Crystals’ farming operations — benefit the Earth and soil and help fight climate change.’”

Van Keulen ruled the plaintiff could bring false advertising claims against Florida Crystals Corporation generally, without tying them to a specific product, although Florida Crystals Regenerative Organic Certified Sugars and Specialty Raw Cane Sugars were cited in the complaint as examples of products bearing the statements.

The plaintiff, Macy Merrell, said she purchased the supposedly eco-friendly products due to environmental concerns, including air pollution from preharvest sugarcane burning and harm to local water sources.

Van Keulen noted that preharvest burning is more harmful than the alternative practice of green harvesting and that the company did not deny using the practice for all products, only those certified “USDA Organic.”

The plaintiff also claimed Florida Crystals’ fertilizer runoff contributes to “dead zones” in nearby waterways, including Lake Okeechobee. She further said the company’s operations in the Everglades Agricultural Area block southward water flow, “starving the Everglades of clean water critical to the health of its ecosystems.”

“We’re pleased that the court rejected Florida Crystals’ efforts to prematurely end this case and evade accountability for deceiving consumers like Ms. Merrell while avoiding further public scrutiny of its deeply harmful farming practices,” said plaintiff’s attorney Ben Fuchs. “We look forward to discovery.”

Van Keulen concluded “sufficient allegations specific to the impact of defendant’s practices were enough” to not toss the false advertising claims.

“[The] green-dominated packaging gives the impression not merely that defendant supports the use of farming practices that benefit the environment but actually uses those practices, whereas defendant in fact uses allegedly environmentally harmful farming practices,” she said.

However, she did not rule on whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by the statements, saying it was a question of fact not appropriate for a motion to dismiss.

Van Keulen dismissed the plaintiff’s requests for restitution under a California Unfair Competition Law claim and punitive damages under false advertising, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims.

Representatives for Florida Crystals did not immediately respond to a request for comment.