General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Splenda Trial Over

Started by RRzVRR · · Last activity · 13 posts · 109 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
13 May 2007
Last activity
16 May 2007
Original author
RRzVRR
Posts
13
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
109
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–13 of 13
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Finally got around to reading Saturday's paper. While we'll
    never know what the jury decided, we will see in the coming
    months what effect the trial had on Splenda marketing.

    NTY
    May 12, 2007
    Artificial Sweetener Makers Reach Settlement on Slogan
    By LYNNLEY BROWNING

    The makers of Equal and Splenda reached an undisclosed settlement
    yesterday over Splenda’s contested slogan “made from sugar, so it
    tastes like sugar,” ending a monthlong trial in which, just
    moments earlier, a jury had reached a verdict.

    As a result of the settlement, the verdict was not read to the court.

    According to one person close to the matter, the emergence of the
    verdict suggested that the jury might have found in favor of
    Equal’s maker, Merisant.

    The person spoke on condition he not be identified because
    neither the terms of the settlement, which he called “sizable,”
    nor the verdict was publicly disclosed.

    Jurors were instructed by the presiding Judge Gene E. K. Pratter
    not to disclose the verdict.

    Merisant, the maker of Equal, sued McNeil Nutritionals, the maker
    of Splenda, in Federal District Court in Philadelphia in 2004,
    contending that Splenda had deceived millions of consumers by
    deliberately creating the impression that Splenda was healthier
    and natural because it started out with sugar, even though the
    final product has no sugar.

    Merisant had sought at least $176 million from McNeil, a division
    of Johnson & Johnson.

    It was not disclosed whether the settlement would require or
    prompt Splenda’s maker to alter advertising slogans for its
    sweetener, a move that could hurt sales at McNeil, Splenda’s maker.

    The makers of the two artificial sweeteners released a brief
    joint statement late yesterday saying that the details of the
    settlement were confidential and that they would make no
    additional comment. Lawyers and spokesmen for both companies
    declined requests for comment.

    The unusual lawsuit filed by Equal against Splenda — false
    advertising claims do not typically go to trial — highlight the
    fierce battle for leadership in the $1.5 billion artificial
    sweetener market.

    Splenda, introduced as a mass-market product in 2000, has rapidly
    overtaken the one-time industry leader Equal and now has nearly
    two-thirds of the artificial sweetener market in the United States.

    Splenda’s core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener, sucralose,
    that is manufactured in laboratories as a synthetic compound.
    Although a sugar molecule is used in the process and despite its
    similar-sounding name, sucralose is not the same thing as
    sucrose, the technical name for pure table sugar.

    Equal, also known as aspartame, and sold in a blue packet, has no
    sugar in it at all; its maker has always marketed its product as
    an artificial sweetener, not as something akin — or closer to —
    real sugar, like Splenda does.

    This week, lawyers for Equal argued before the jury that
    Splenda’s maker knew consumers were confused about whether
    Splenda actually contained sugar, but that they deliberately
    sought to associate their product with sugar, rather than with
    artificial sweeteners, according to notes provided by a spokesman
    for Equal’s maker, Merisant.

    Splenda argued during the trial, through an array of experts,
    that it had never deceived consumers or set out to deceive them,
    since the product did in fact start out with sugar.

    Last Thursday, a French business court, the Commercial Court of
    Paris, ruled in favor of a French subsidiary of Equal’s maker,
    Merisant, and said that Splenda had intentionally confused
    consumers with its advertising. The court, which found that
    Splenda’s French subsidiary had violated French advertising and
    consumer protection laws, ordered the subsidiary to cease its
    claims that Splenda is made from sugar and tastes like sugar.

    --
    Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
    -Emiliano Zapata

    Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
    http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

  2. "RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Last Thursday, a French business court, the Commercial Court of Paris,
    ruled in favor of a French subsidiary of Equal’s maker, Merisant, and said
    that Splenda had intentionally confused consumers with its advertising.
    The court, which found that Splenda’s French subsidiary had violated
    French advertising and consumer protection laws, ordered the subsidiary to
    cease its claims that Splenda is made from sugar and tastes like sugar.

    I'll never understand courts. I'd expect this in France (nothing would
    surprise me from there) but the logic of all of this defies understanding:
    1 - Is Splenda made from sugar? Yes.
    2 - Does Splenda taste like sugar? Yes.
    3 - Splenda is guilty of making false claims.

    HUH?

    I'll never get it.

    --
    Sherry
    lowcarb.owly.net

  3. UsenetID wrote:
    :: "RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    :: news:[email hidden]...
    ::: Last Thursday, a French business court, the Commercial Court of
    ::: Paris, ruled in favor of a French subsidiary of Equal’s maker,
    ::: Merisant, and said that Splenda had intentionally confused
    ::: consumers with its advertising. The court, which found that
    ::: Splenda’s French subsidiary had violated French advertising and
    ::: consumer protection laws, ordered the subsidiary to cease its
    ::: claims that Splenda is made from sugar and tastes like sugar.
    ::
    :: I'll never understand courts. I'd expect this in France (nothing
    :: would surprise me from there) but the logic of all of this defies
    :: understanding: 1 - Is Splenda made from sugar? Yes.
    :: 2 - Does Splenda taste like sugar? Yes.
    :: 3 - Splenda is guilty of making false claims.
    ::
    :: HUH?
    ::
    :: I'll never get it.

    haha. They could have at least put the "because" in there!

  4. hehehe

    I suppose (playing Devil's advocate) that if it does not taste like sugar
    because it is made from sugar, but rather because it chemically resembles
    sugar, that the original advertisement might be technically wrong.

    Please don't sue me for this post!

    "UsenetID" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Last Thursday, a French business court, the Commercial Court of Paris,
    ruled in favor of a French subsidiary of Equal's maker, Merisant, and
    said that Splenda had intentionally confused consumers with its
    advertising. The court, which found that Splenda's French subsidiary had
    violated French advertising and consumer protection laws, ordered the
    subsidiary to cease its claims that Splenda is made from sugar and tastes
    like sugar.

    I'll never understand courts. I'd expect this in France (nothing would
    surprise me from there) but the logic of all of this defies understanding:
    1 - Is Splenda made from sugar? Yes.
    2 - Does Splenda taste like sugar? Yes.
    3 - Splenda is guilty of making false claims.

    HUH?

    I'll never get it.

    --
    Sherry
    lowcarb.owly.net

  5. Cubit said:

    hehehe

    I suppose (playing Devil's advocate) that if it does not taste like sugar
    because it is made from sugar, but rather because it chemically resembles
    sugar, that the original advertisement might be technically wrong.

    Please don't sue me for this post!

    "UsenetID" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "RRzVRR" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Last Thursday, a French business court, the Commercial Court of Paris,
    ruled in favor of a French subsidiary of Equal's maker, Merisant, and
    said that Splenda had intentionally confused consumers with its
    advertising. The court, which found that Splenda's French subsidiary had
    violated French advertising and consumer protection laws, ordered the
    subsidiary to cease its claims that Splenda is made from sugar and tastes
    like sugar.

    Quoted message said:

    I'll never understand courts. I'd expect this in France (nothing would
    surprise me from there) but the logic of all of this defies understanding:
    1 - Is Splenda made from sugar? Yes.
    2 - Does Splenda taste like sugar? Yes.
    3 - Splenda is guilty of making false claims.

    Quoted message said:

    HUH?

    Quoted message said:

    I'll never get it.

    Quoted message said:

    --
    Sherry
    lowcarb.owly.net- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    Thanks for the response and the news. I am glad to have figured out
    the schemes behind Splenda. Disgusting.

  6. RRzVRR said:

    Finally got around to reading Saturday's paper. While we'll
    never know what the jury decided, we will see in the coming
    months what effect the trial had on Splenda marketing.

    NTY
    May 12, 2007
    Artificial Sweetener Makers Reach Settlement on Slogan
    By LYNNLEY BROWNING

    The makers of Equal and Splenda reached an undisclosed settlement
    yesterday over Splenda's contested slogan "made from sugar, so it
    tastes like sugar," ending a monthlong trial in which, just
    moments earlier, a jury had reached a verdict.

    We can maybe guess that the settlement will look like this:
    McNeil will continue selling Splenda with a Made From Sugar / Tastes
    like Sugar marketing line.
    Merisent will get large cash payment in a declining industry.

    The facts of the matter are as follows:
    Artificial Sweeteners are a growing business.
    Historically, when a new AS comes on the market, the old dominant one
    falls by the wayside, assuming the entrant breaks the critical floor.
    The old AS will hang around, never really go away, but hold a small
    market share.

    No judgment or settlement that doesn't bar Splenda from the shelves
    and the b2b market is going to put Nutrasweet back to the 80% market
    share it once enjoyed. In fact, it's debatable how much the Tastes
    Like Because It's Made From advertising really had to do with the
    0-60% market share growth in 7 years of availability of Splenda. How
    much was the advertising, how much was the natural progression of the
    product lifecycle? How much was the natural progression sped up?

    Last thought: Even if a French Court and a jury of McNeil/Merisent's
    peers say the claim is deceptive, are you gonna cut back on your
    Splenda use? I'm not.

  7. Hollywood said:
    RRzVRR said:

    Finally got around to reading Saturday's paper. While we'll
    never know what the jury decided, we will see in the coming
    months what effect the trial had on Splenda marketing.

    Quoted message said:

    NTY
    May 12, 2007
    Artificial Sweetener Makers Reach Settlement on Slogan
    By LYNNLEY BROWNING

    Quoted message said:

    The makers of Equal and Splenda reached an undisclosed settlement
    yesterday over Splenda's contested slogan "made from sugar, so it
    tastes like sugar," ending a monthlong trial in which, just
    moments earlier, a jury had reached a verdict.

    We can maybe guess that the settlement will look like this:
    McNeil will continue selling Splenda with a Made From Sugar / Tastes
    like Sugar marketing line.

    Possible, but I think it unlikely. A plaintiff that thinks they have
    been wronged isn't very likely to take cash for what they perceive as
    something that has been done unfairly to them and then say it's OK to
    keep doing it. I predict you're going to see the tag line in question
    most likely be changed, or else just disappear all together. But,
    we'll see.

    Quoted message said:

    Merisent will get large cash payment in a declining industry.

    Yes, and so it seems that McNeil also agreed that the case had merit
    and could likely go against them.

    Quoted message said:


    The facts of the matter are as follows:
    Artificial Sweeteners are a growing business.
    Historically, when a new AS comes on the market, the old dominant one
    falls by the wayside, assuming the entrant breaks the critical floor.
    The old AS will hang around, never really go away, but hold a small
    market share.

    No judgment or settlement that doesn't bar Splenda from the shelves
    and the b2b market is going to put Nutrasweet back to the 80% market
    share it once enjoyed. In fact, it's debatable how much the Tastes
    Like Because It's Made From advertising really had to do with the
    0-60% market share growth in 7 years of availability of Splenda. How
    much was the advertising, how much was the natural progression of the
    product lifecycle? How much was the natural progression sped up?

    I agree, it would be hard to pin this down exactly. But you could use
    some consumer polling data and similar to get some estimate of the
    effect.

    Quoted message said:


    Last thought: Even if a French Court and a jury of McNeil/Merisent's
    peers say the claim is deceptive, are you gonna cut back on your
    Splenda use? I'm not.

    Same here.

  8. On May 14, 1:24 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Hollywood said:

    On May 13, 12:36 pm, RRzVRR <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Finally got around to reading Saturday's paper. While we'll
    never know what the jury decided, we will see in the coming
    months what effect the trial had on Splenda marketing.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    NTY
    May 12, 2007
    Artificial Sweetener Makers Reach Settlement on Slogan
    By LYNNLEY BROWNING

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The makers of Equal and Splenda reached an undisclosed settlement
    yesterday over Splenda's contested slogan "made from sugar, so it
    tastes like sugar," ending a monthlong trial in which, just
    moments earlier, a jury had reached a verdict.

    Quoted message said:

    We can maybe guess that the settlement will look like this:
    McNeil will continue selling Splenda with a Made From Sugar / Tastes
    like Sugar marketing line.

    Possible, but I think it unlikely. A plaintiff that thinks they have
    been wronged isn't very likely to take cash for what they perceive as
    something that has been done unfairly to them and then say it's OK to
    keep doing it. I predict you're going to see the tag line in question
    most likely be changed, or else just disappear all together. But,
    we'll see.

    I think it will be revised. With a jury decision, we might see if the
    offending piece is "Made from Sugar" "Because" or "Tastes Like Sugar."
    If it's because, then they can just switch it to Made From Sugar,
    Tastes Like Sugar. No real causality there, other than implication. If
    it's the Made from Sugar, that's a tougher road to hoe. Can go with
    "Tastes like sugar," but they will probably go with something else.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see part of the agreement be that Merisant
    must relinquish future rights to sue over marketing slogans within a
    certain range of language. Oh, and they probably will have to drop
    suits in other jurisdictions.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Merisent will get large cash payment in a declining industry.

    Yes, and so it seems that McNeil also agreed that the case had merit
    and could likely go against them.

    Could be that McNeil felt the case would go against them, and take
    several years to go through appeals with interest accumulating on
    fines, and increasing legal fees. Just cause the wind is blowing one
    way doesn't mean they feel the case has merit. It is almost definitely
    a business decision to take it. It's cheaper to settle than go through
    multiple additional rounds.

    And deep down, they still own 60% of a growing market, and are growing
    that market share quickly. It would not be surprising to see them wind
    up with 75-80% of the AS market, which is an expanding pie anyway. So,
    you pay out some cash, and keep the right to mint money until someone
    invents a better product. That's how you play the game.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    No judgment or settlement that doesn't bar Splenda from the shelves
    and the b2b market is going to put Nutrasweet back to the 80% market
    share it once enjoyed. In fact, it's debatable how much the Tastes
    Like Because It's Made From advertising really had to do with the
    0-60% market share growth in 7 years of availability of Splenda. How
    much was the advertising, how much was the natural progression of the
    product lifecycle? How much was the natural progression sped up?

    I agree, it would be hard to pin this down exactly. But you could use
    some consumer polling data and similar to get some estimate of the
    effect.

    You'd need historical data. It's tough enough to tease out anything in
    the present moment. A consumer poll with "So, five years ago, you
    dumped Equal for Splenda. What part did "Tastes Like Sugar Because
    It's Made From Sugar" play in that?"

    I think I first got on Splenda because of Atkins. Or maybe this group.
    Or maybe Eades. But it was before they started TV ads. But, that's
    hazy at best.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Last thought: Even if a French Court and a jury of McNeil/Merisent's
    peers say the claim is deceptive, are you gonna cut back on your
    Splenda use? I'm not.

    Same here.

    In the law, we call this damages, because it's like toothpaste. You
    can't fairly put it back in the tube, so you gotta buy the tube to
    make things even. If 60% of the market for AS continues to be
    Splenda's, I don't think they are gonna give everything to Merisant.
    More likely, a portion. How big a portion is the interesting piece.

  9. Now how about this. Suppose some ambulance chasing lawyer sees this
    and now decides to sue McNeil with a class action suit on the same
    issue, but on behalf of consumers?

  10. [email hidden] wrote:
    :: Now how about this. Suppose some ambulance chasing lawyer sees this
    :: and now decides to sue McNeil with a class action suit on the same
    :: issue, but on behalf of consumers?

    No more Splenda...

  11. On May 14, 7:11 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Now how about this. Suppose some ambulance chasing lawyer sees this
    and now decides to sue McNeil with a class action suit on the same
    issue, but on behalf of consumers?

    I dunno that there are real damages in that case.

    I could go on, at length, but Merisent's damages (and those of the
    sugar industry) are not similar to a consumer's damages. Merisent's
    are both the damage done in the past and it's effect on the future.
    Ditto Big Sugar's. A consumer (minus a heretofore undiscovered health
    issue) is limited to the past (the money they are out). It'd be hard
    to argue that Splenda's shady marketing has traumatized a consumer or
    done any real lasting damage. That said, I would bet that someone
    shady has already started the class action suit.

    Last thought: 99% of class action suits filed fail due to lack of
    class certification. So, the assembly of the class doesn't mean
    anything. The certification is what's important, and that's in the
    judiciary. Would be a real judicial hell hole where that would happen
    (worse than supposed "Hell Hole" Madison County, MO).

  12. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Now how about this. Suppose some ambulance chasing lawyer sees this
    and now decides to sue McNeil with a class action suit on the same
    issue, but on behalf of consumers?

    The lawyer might have to start from scratch. It is common in settlements of
    lawsuits for the plaintiff to agree that the defendant did nothing wrong in
    exchange for money (consideration) for the plaintiff.

    Thus, on paper, I'll bet McNeil has won, even though they presumably paid
    cash to the other guys.

  13. Cubit said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Now how about this. Suppose some ambulance chasing lawyer sees this
    and now decides to sue McNeil with a class action suit on the same
    issue, but on behalf of consumers?

    The lawyer might have to start from scratch. It is common in settlements of
    lawsuits for the plaintiff to agree that the defendant did nothing wrong in
    exchange for money (consideration) for the plaintiff.

    I don't think Merisant can sign off Splenda's customers' right to
    sue.

    After a little consideration, it's a ripe class action. The damages
    are small, the aggrieved parties might be everyone. But, what to seek?
    Coupon settlement? For what? Sugar? I still think a judge certifying
    such a class would be off his rocker, but, well, I've learned to lower
    my expectations for other people's sanity.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.