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.
April 1, 2015
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?"
You May Also Like