Fairlife must face consumers’ claim that its logo is misleading

LOS ANGELES (CN) — Fairlife, an upscale milk brand owned by Coca-Cola, must face claims that its logo is misleading because, according to the plaintiff consumers, the cows that produce the company's milk don't live a "fair life" but are mistreated.

While U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II rejected several of the claims in the putative class action case because the plaintiffs hadn't made an adequate showing how they had relied on representations or omissions on Fairlife's website to argue they had been deceived, the judge agreed that at least the logo on the milk bottles could be construed as misleading.

The combination of “fair” and “life” together in a brand name may reasonably lead to the assumption that the subject of the brand lives a “fair life,” the judge, a George W. Bush appointee, said in his decision Friday.

"However, when this brand name is superimposed on a cartoon picture of a cow, the implication becomes unmistakable: the cows are living a fair life," he wrote. "Thus, it is well within reason for a consumer to believe that, based on the Fairlife logo, the cows supplying Fairlife’s dairy products are living lives free from abuse."

The judge also agreed the consumers had made a sufficient claim that the "Recycle Me" statement on the Fairlife bottles is misleading under California law given that, according to the lawsuit, they aren't recyclable. However, a safe harbor provision in the state's statute bars claims over this kind of misrepresentation until October of this year.

Wright also dismissed Coco-Cola from the lawsuit, because the consumers hadn't made a case how the parent company was involved in any purported deceptive ploys by Fairlife.

The judge's ruling, however, does allow the plaintiffs to revise their claims and try to overcome the failings he singled out in his order.

An attorney for the consumers declined to comment on the ruling. Lawyers for Fairlife did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fairlife was hit with the false advertising lawsuit last year over renewed accusations that its suppliers routinely abuse their cows and pollute waterways.

Launched in 2012, Fairlife purports to be “ultra-filtered” milk, which is to say it goes through a filtration process that removes its lactose and much of its sugar, leaving behind relatively more calcium and protein than other kinds of milk. Fairlife also claims, on its website, to be both animal and environmentally friendly, “patterning with like-minded supplying farms that share Fairlife’s commitment to well-cared-for cows” and working hard to lessen its environmental impact.

But in the complaint filed in federal court, four named plaintiffs, including Aryout Michael Thomas Bhotiwihok of Los Angeles, accuse Fairlife of false advertising and betraying that so-called mission.

“In reality, however, the animal care and sustainability marketing scheme and practice are based on materially false, misleading, untrue, and/or unjust claims and omissions,” Bhotiwihok and the others say in their complaint.

The class action cites recent investigations by the nonprofit Animal Recovery Mission that found, according to the plaintiffs, “systemic widespread egregious animal cruelty, cruel standard practices, and extreme neglect, including at the hands of and with the awareness of management.”

According to Animal Recovery Mission, its operatives infiltrated a number of dairy farms that supply milk to Fairlife and captured video footage of calves “violently separated from their mothers, confined in tiny wooden crates, and subjected to relentless abuse by workers and managers,” as wells as calves left to die from dehydration in 135-degree heat.

Other investigations found, according to the plaintiffs, that dairy farms were dumping dead cows “near waterways abutting a suburban subdivision and recreational park land outside of Phoenix, Arizona, causing algae blooms indicating water pollution from the calf carcasses.”

“Fairlife’s packaging is not in fact recyclable, despite its multiple claims of recyclability, both on and linked on the packaging," the plaintiffs say in the complaint.

In 2019, when it was still only half-owned by Coca-Cola, Fairlife was hit with at least two federal class actions over animal rights abuse, citing earlier investigations by Animal Recovery Mission. In 2022, after it had been fully acquired by Coca-Cola for an initial payment of $980 million, Fairlife settled those claims, agreeing to pay out $21 million.

Following the settlement, Fairlife, according to the plaintiffs, “made public statements and settled a consumer class action false advertising lawsuit in a manner designed to communicate that improvements and solutions had been made, and later advertised that investments in animal care and oversight had been made, indicating to consumers that the animals in the Fairlife supply chain were not in fact being abused or neglected and that they were being treated with higher levels of care.”

But, the plaintiffs contend, the abuse revealed by undercover animal rights activists is worse than ever.

Follow @edpettersson