Coca-Cola said no one could 'reasonably be misled' by Vitaminwater — the judge disagreed

Vitaminwater, owned by Coca-Cola through its Glacéau subsidiary, was marketed with flavours named 'Defense,' 'Rescue,' 'Energy,' and 'Endurance.' The packaging and advertising implied health benefits — immune support, energy, recovery. A 20-ounce bottle contained approximately 32 grams of sugar, roughly the same as a can of Coca-Cola.

In 2009, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss, arguing that the name 'Vitaminwater' disclosed the product's nature — it contains vitamins and water — and that 'no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking Vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.' The defence's argument that consumers should know a product called Vitaminwater was not healthy became the most quoted line of the case.

In 2010, Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York denied Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss, rejecting the argument that the name was sufficient disclosure. The case proceeded to discovery and was settled in 2016. Coca-Cola agreed to add 'with sweeteners' to the front label, stop health and disease-prevention claims, and improve sugar disclosure. The settlement was primarily injunctive — labelling and marketing changes rather than a large payout — but the ruling on the motion to dismiss became a precedent: a product name is not a disclaimer.