POM Court Decision: Two RCTs Not the Gold Standard for Claims

In late January 2015, The U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. upheld FTC’s ruling that POM Wonderful made illegal disease-prevention claims for its pomegranate juice products. However, the court noted the two randomized control trial (RCT) standard established by FTC for marketing clams may be in violation of the First Amendment. Watch this INSIDER interview with Ivan Wasserman, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, to get a better understanding of the complexities of the POM Wonderful case and what it means to future claims for natural products.  

In late January 2015, The U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. upheld FTC’s ruling that POM Wonderful made illegal disease-prevention claims for its pomegranate juice products. However, the court noted the two randomized control trial (RCT) standard established by FTC for marketing clams may be in violation of the First Amendment.

Watch this INSIDER interview with Ivan Wasserman, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, to get a better understanding of the complexities of the POM Wonderful case and what it means to future claims for natural products.

Related Content: "The POM/FTC Court of Appeals Decision: What Did POM Win?"

Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish