This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/28/nestle-lawsuit-poland-spring-water-groundwater

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Nestle to face lawsuit saying Poland Spring water not from a spring Nestlé to face lawsuit saying Poland Spring water not from a spring
(about 13 hours later)
A federal judge on Thursday rejected Nestle SA’s bid to dismiss a revised lawsuit claiming that it defrauded consumers by filling bottles of its Poland Spring water with ordinary groundwater.A federal judge on Thursday rejected Nestle SA’s bid to dismiss a revised lawsuit claiming that it defrauded consumers by filling bottles of its Poland Spring water with ordinary groundwater.
The US district Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer said consumers from eight north-eastern states may pursue claims that Nestle Waters North America deceived them into overpaying by labeling Poland Spring as “100% Natural Spring Water”.The US district Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer said consumers from eight north-eastern states may pursue claims that Nestle Waters North America deceived them into overpaying by labeling Poland Spring as “100% Natural Spring Water”.
The New Haven, Connecticut-based judge allowed claims on behalf of consumers from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. He said federal law pre-empted claims from Vermont consumers.The New Haven, Connecticut-based judge allowed claims on behalf of consumers from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. He said federal law pre-empted claims from Vermont consumers.
Nestle Waters had argued there was “no fraud” because its water met the various state requirements. Meyer had dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit last May.Nestle Waters had argued there was “no fraud” because its water met the various state requirements. Meyer had dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit last May.
“We remain highly confident in our legal position and will continue to defend our Poland Spring brand vigorously against this meritless lawsuit,” a Nestle Waters spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday. “Poland Spring brand natural spring water is just what it says it is – 100 percent natural spring water.”“We remain highly confident in our legal position and will continue to defend our Poland Spring brand vigorously against this meritless lawsuit,” a Nestle Waters spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday. “Poland Spring brand natural spring water is just what it says it is – 100 percent natural spring water.”
Nestlé pays $200 a year to bottle water near Flint – where water is undrinkableNestlé pays $200 a year to bottle water near Flint – where water is undrinkable
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
According to the amended complaint, Nestle Waters sells 1bn gallons of Poland Spring a year in the United States, and “not one drop” of its water “emanates from a water source that qualifies as a genuine legal ’natural spring’”.According to the amended complaint, Nestle Waters sells 1bn gallons of Poland Spring a year in the United States, and “not one drop” of its water “emanates from a water source that qualifies as a genuine legal ’natural spring’”.
The actual Poland Spring in Maine, which the defendant’s labels said is a source of Poland Spring water, “commercially ran dry” nearly 50 years ago, the complaint said.The actual Poland Spring in Maine, which the defendant’s labels said is a source of Poland Spring water, “commercially ran dry” nearly 50 years ago, the complaint said.
In his earlier dismissal, Meyer said the plaintiffs were trying merely to enforce guidelines for spring water under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that this pre-empted their state law claims.In his earlier dismissal, Meyer said the plaintiffs were trying merely to enforce guidelines for spring water under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that this pre-empted their state law claims.
But in Thursday’s decision, he said he was “convinced” the plaintiffs would try to show only that Poland Spring water did not meet the states’ individual spring water standards, though they appeared to “mirror” the federal standard.But in Thursday’s decision, he said he was “convinced” the plaintiffs would try to show only that Poland Spring water did not meet the states’ individual spring water standards, though they appeared to “mirror” the federal standard.
NestléNestlé
Law (US)Law (US)
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content